Illustration of Muhammad, Censorship or respect for diversity? Options

From watching AN/I recently, probably many are aware of this petition which has now gardnered more than 18,000 signatures:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-o...-from-wikipedia

The issue is whether the painting of Muhammad should be included in Wikipedia's Muhammad's article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

It seems that there is significant unity of opinion among Muslims that the image should not be included because it is a taboo in Islam to show their prophet's face. Those arguing for include tend to be non-Muslims or, like Matt57, those who can be classified as anti-Muslims.

Some are claiming that this is an issue of censorship, but I can't believe it is that as the painting of Muhammad isn't a likeness but rather just non-realistic depiction. The argument around this image seems to be more about whether or not removing the image will set a precedent that will result in all depictions of Muhammad being removed from Wikipedia.

My opinion is that this particular image makes no significant contribution to the article, but that it does serve as a rallying point for a contrived conflict between anti-Muslim editors (who camouflage their incitement under the banner of "anti-censorship") and Muslim editors.

Although, I do think that the images of Muhammad should be kept in Wikipedia in general and especially with regards to the Danish cartoon controversy. To remove all images of Muhammad from Wikipedia is wrong but we should cover the topic with modicum of sensitivity. Thus I do strongly favor keeping this separate article and its images (and its name should be enough to warn any pious Muslim as to what he/she should expect):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

But keeping one solitary and non-depictive painting of Muhammad in the Muhammad article merely to aggrevate Muslims for the pleasure of anti-Muslim editors seems to be unnecessary, in fact, it seems to be purposely "trollish."

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

From watching AN/I recently, probably many are aware of this petition which has now gardnered more than 18,000 signatures:

Well, that's one way to guarantee that the image doesn't get removed. Wikipedians like to be contrary; they see it as refusing to be bullied, when it really means that they're stubborn asses.

Not really. To me it seems more informative, whereas not including for religious reasons is to deny visual aids in favor of an irrational faith; hardly encyclopedic. I say this as a follower of a religion, though not Islam.

Not really. To me it seems more informative, whereas not including for religious reasons is to deny visual aids in favor of an irrational faith; hardly encyclopedic. I say this as a follower of a religion, though not Islam.

Well, I expected you to support it mostly because including this image in this article has and will continue to result in lots of LOLZ. Trolling Wikipedia is fun, trolling whole religions is even better. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laughing.gif) (I'm not implying Miltopia is anti-Islam or anything, but I've read elsewhere that Miltopica a big fan of LOLZ with ED and all.)

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

Under NPOV, the views of a particular religious group shouldn't be allowed to dictate what Wikipedia can publish.

You can't really "troll" an entire religion.

Under NPOV, the views of a particular religious group shouldn't be allowed to dictate what Wikipedia can publish.

WP lacks editorial restraint. It lacks even the ability to develop editorial restraint. That is why a site that has been characterized by it supporters as a "Children's Crusade" makes no effort to limit sexually explicit images, nor even take sensible measures to be COPPA compliant. This despite the obvious fact that much of rudimentary and low grade sexually explicit depictions would seem to be deliberately targeting minors.

Voluntarily refraining from publishing images offensive to adherents of one of the world's major religions is not in the realm of the possible in a community in which middle-school level discussion of "free speech" prevails. It would require that notions of decency and good will occasionally override self-absorbed notions of entitlement. Not going to happen on WP, especially when the group they offend is one that they disdain and systematically discriminate against in any event.

The inability to engage in voluntary restraint is one of the fundamental weaknesses of collaborative projects.

The inability to engage in voluntary restraint is one of the fundamental weaknesses of collaborative projects.

There are notable (if rare) exceptions. There are historical examples of youthful collaborations which operated under the terms of a mutually agreed-upon social contract. In some cases, these collaborations achieved laudatory world-class results.

You can't really "troll" an entire religion.

You can try. I'm thinking of Richard Dawkins (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) He probably doesn't even stop at trolling just one religion (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

You can't really "troll" an entire religion.

You can try. I'm thinking of Richard Dawkins :D He probably doesn't even stop at trolling just one religion :D

I like Richard Dawkins as he actually has a point to his criticism. These machinations on the Muhammad article though do not have a larger point except to show offense to those of Muslim faith by insisting on an in-your-face inclusion of an otherwise nonnotable image.

Instead of the term "trolling", it may be better to describe this as a form of "baiting." Thus one could call what is going on with the Muhammad article "Muslim baiting."

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

Voluntarily refraining from publishing images offensive to adherents of one of the world's major religions is not in the realm of the possible in a community in which middle-school level discussion of "free speech" prevails. It would require that notions of decency and good will occasionally override self-absorbed notions of entitlement. Not going to happen on WP, especially when the group they offend is one that they disdain and systematically discriminate against in any event.

That's true. The community would never assent to this, and a serious push would probably only lead to an explicit expansion of the "not censored for..." policy.

Maybe Jimbo would redline it, like he did back when with autofellatio.

This post has been edited by One:

Voluntarily refraining from publishing images offensive to adherents of one of the world's major religions is not in the realm of the possible in a community in which middle-school level discussion of "free speech" prevails. It would require that notions of decency and good will occasionally override self-absorbed notions of entitlement. Not going to happen on WP, especially when the group they offend is one that they disdain and systematically discriminate against in any event.

That's true. The community would never assent to this, and would probably only lead to an explicit expansion of the "not censored for..." policy.

Maybe Jimbo would redline it, like he did back when with autofellatio.

Out of misplaced curiousity I just checked the autofellatio article, and I can say confidently that there is clearly no censorship going on there. Actually, I could have done without the explicit picture, the drawing was enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofellatio

Voluntarily refraining from publishing images offensive to adherents of one of the world's major religions is not in the realm of the possible in a community in which middle-school level discussion of "free speech" prevails. It would require that notions of decency and good will occasionally override self-absorbed notions of entitlement. Not going to happen on WP, especially when the group they offend is one that they disdain and systematically discriminate against in any event.

That's true. The community would never assent to this, and would probably only lead to an explicit expansion of the "not censored for..." policy.

Maybe Jimbo would redline it, like he did back when with autofellatio.

Out of misplaced curiousity I just checked the autofellatio article, and I can say confidently that there is clearly no censorship going on there. Actually, I could have done without the explicit picture, the drawing was enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofellatio

Yep, that's the community. Two years ago, though, a photo was removed by Jimbo himself and later replaced with a link to the same, before the community (or at least one admin) tired of such heinous "censorship."

This post has been edited by One:

Instead of the term "trolling", it may be better to describe this as a form of "baiting." Thus one could call what is going on with the Muhammad article "Muslim baiting."

Maybe just anti- fundamentalist Islam?

Which a lot of people feel these days.

The argument around this image seems to be more about whether or not removing the image will set a precedent that will result in all depictions of Muhammad being removed from Wikipedia.

Well it could be argued that not only that, but whatever other things to which Muslims or others decided to take offence could face objections and removal.

For instance, a few weeks ago on the village pump or somewhere, someone was trying to argue that the term "the five pillars of Wikipedia" might be offensive to Muslims.

Instead of the term "trolling", it may be better to describe this as a form of "baiting." Thus one could call what is going on with the Muhammad article "Muslim baiting."

Maybe just anti- fundamentalist Islam?

Which a lot of people feel these days.

The image in question is inconsequential to the article though. We aren't talking about the Danish Muhammad cartoon controversy, we are talking about the Muhammad article. There is already a link to the detailed "Depictions_of_Muhammad" article in the "See also" section.

My point isn't that we should bow down to those of Islamic faith on all articles (especially those dealing with radical Islam or other systemetic problems of intolerance apparent in some cultures), but rather we shouldn't go out of our way to be purposely insulting when there is no other point.

The idea of baiting, both Muslim baiting and Jew baiting, is to intigate a response which you can then use to play the victim. The baiting of Jews often entails a unfair overly general accusation to which someone calls it correct as antisemitism, but then the baiter uses the response to claim that "now everything is antisemitic" but in reality the baiter was purposely being antisemitic and is now false playing the victim, sometimes to great effect. The truth of the matter is that the baiter is trying to get a response so that he can then play the victim of the other group's seemingly over zealous accusations of intolerance. Muslims nor Jews nor Christians are all perfect people, but to purposely bait any of these groups is just going to widen divides and spread more intolerance (although sometimes this is exactly the goals of those doing the baiting.)

Wikipedia is allowing a few non-Muslim individuals to hijack the Muhammad article for the purposes of Muslim baiting. It is wrong and disgraceful. It is also highly anti-consensus of the boarder public.

Well it could be argued that not only that, but whatever other things to which Muslims or others decided to take offence could face objections and removal.

For instance, a few weeks ago on the village pump or somewhere, someone was trying to argue that the term "the five pillars of Wikipedia" might be offensive to Muslims.

I don't think this is a slipperly slope issue as the Muhammad article is a historical/religious/mythical figure, it is not a scientific article nor does it deal with Wikipedia policy. I am a beliver that selective and intelligent accommodation goes a long way to ensuring a functioning multicultural society. Although, it is also important not to confuse accommodation with appeasement, there is a significant difference.

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

The underlying problem is that most Muslims aren't accustomed to Islam or its key figures being discussed objectively, without the reverence accorded to the sacred and the supernatural, of which the prohibition on imagery is but one component.

I don't think this is a slipperly slope issue as the Muhammad article is a historical/religious/mythical figure, it is not a scientific article nor does it deal with Wikipedia policy.

Muhammad is not a mythical figure, but one of the most influential real persons in history. To treat him as if he somehow "belongs" to Muslims deprives others of the opportunity to learn about their own history, in which, if you're a human being living on earth, Muhammad played a major role.

The underlying problem is that most Muslims aren't accustomed to Islam or its key figures being discussed objectively, without the reverence accorded to the sacred and the supernatural, of which the prohibition on imagery is but one component.

I don't think this is a slipperly slope issue as the Muhammad article is a historical/religious/mythical figure, it is not a scientific article nor does it deal with Wikipedia policy.

Muhammad is not a mythical figure, but one of the most influential real persons in history. To treat him as if he somehow "belongs" to Muslims deprives others of the opportunity to learn about their own history, in which, if you're a human being living on earth, Muhammad played a major role.

Don't worry, I know that technically Muhammad existed, but like many other religious figures, he is surrounded by myths. In my atheist world view, Muhammad designation as a "prophet" from God is a myth. Jesus existed too, but much of what is acribed to him didn't really happen either.

I am not saying that the criticism of Muhammad should be removed, nor objective historical discussion. Rather simply the depiction of Muhammad should be removed from the main Muhammad article since there isn't an objective point to including it except to bait Muslims. There is, on the other hand, significant reasons for including objective historical analyses and other aspects, I am not advocating for their removal in any way.

What I am saying is that I am against baiting Muslims for the primary purpose of provoking emotive responses. That style of engagement doesn't change people's minds, rather it creates reactions that push people further apart. The fact that the petition has 18,000 signatures while on the Muhammad talk page a bunch of Christians and Jews are making fun of the comments on the petition and on the talk page while preventing any changes to the article is incredibly telling -- its not a mystery as to what is going on.

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

No, I mean as many as they can. Wikipedia has 2. I mean over 50. and as many insulting ones as they can.

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

No, I mean as many as they can. Wikipedia has 2. I mean over 50. and as many insulting ones as they can.

Just having the images in Wikipedia or in the Danish cartoon controversy article doesn't bother me that much. The issue I and many others have is using these images for no purpose whatsoever except to bait Muslims as is being done on the highly trafficed Muhammad page.

There is a cottage industry of anti-Muslim sites on the web these days, it probably exceeds the number of antisemitic / Holocaust denial websites. Go back and read the comparison I made between "Jew baiting" and "Muslim baiting", I think it is very relevant in understanding the dynamic that is going on.

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

No, I mean as many as they can. Wikipedia has 2. I mean over 50. and as many insulting ones as they can.

There are four images depicting Muhammad currently in the article. But that aside I did know what you meant. You know...just messing with you.

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

No, I mean as many as they can. Wikipedia has 2. I mean over 50. and as many insulting ones as they can.

There are four images depicting Muhammad currently in the article. But that aside I did know what you meant. You know...just messing with you.

There is this collage image of insulting Muslim depictions, but again, I think this one serves a purpose as it it is central to a major controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jylland...meds-ansigt.png

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

Not at all. There was negotiated a limit to the number of depictions which would appear on Muhammad, something which doesn't exist for any other article on a major historical figure of which I'm aware, some of whom have many more depictions than does Muhammad . Several images were rejected for inclusion due to their disparaging character, even though they're historical and topical - for example, Blake's image of Muhammad in Hell.

One article which might be more aptly criticized is Depictions of Muhammad - I'm not sure why this article is necessary - however, it was created not to bait Muslims, but to provide an excuse for removing images from Muhammad (we're not censoring them, just moving them.)

This is more insulting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

"Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad. She stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummated

"Marriages, or love relationships, or for pleasure in an informal sense, are said to be consummated when the act of sexual intercourse has taken place after the ceremony or confession of love."


Yup, that's right.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

This is more insulting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

"Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad."

The problem is that it appears to be true. All Islamic records (the only sources) agree in this.

There are some websites that go and try to display as many pictures of Muhammed as they can.

Yes, Wikipedia is one of them.

Not at all. There was negotiated a limit to the number of depictions which would appear on Muhammad, something which doesn't exist for any other article on a major historical figure of which I'm aware, some of whom have many more depictions than does Muhammad . Several images were rejected for inclusion due to their disparaging character, even though they're historical and topical - for example, Blake's image of Muhammad in Hell.

One article which might be more aptly criticized is Depictions of Muhammad - I'm not sure why this article is necessary - however, it was created not to bait Muslims, but to provide an excuse for removing images from Muhammad (we're not censoring them, just moving them.)

It is only Wikipedian self importance and entitlement that says they need any offensive images. The depictions add nothing whatsoever. WP should show greater self-restraint. Yes I figured that the images were the result of some WP wonkering process. It has two "veiled" images and two showing Muhammad's face. How nice of them to only make the more blatant offense twice.

Wikipedia also says Muhammed was polygamous like the early Mormons. Strange.....

This is more insulting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

"Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad."

The problem is that it appears to be true. All Islamic records (the only sources) agree in this.

It is quite likely true as it is described as such in the Quran. It is covered accurately in Wikipedia. I'm not sure it is relevant unless we are going derail this thread into a general criticism of Islam thread -- if that is the case, I recommend moving these specific off-topic posts to the politics forum.

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

Wikipedia also says Muhammed was polygamous like the early Mormons. Strange.....

So what? So was Abraham. So was David.

This is more insulting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

"Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad."

The problem is that it appears to be true. All Islamic records (the only sources) agree in this.

It is quite likely true as it is described as such in the Quran. It is covered accurately in Wikipedia. I'm not sure it is relevant unless you want to derail this thread into a general Muslim criticism thread -- if that is the case, I recommend moving these specific off-topic posts to the politics forum.

Okay, I was thinking of the BLPs. In a BLP, they like to remove all the embarressing facts, like Jason Mewes's drug use.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

You can't really "troll" an entire religion.

You can try. I'm thinking of Richard Dawkins (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) He probably doesn't even stop at trolling just one religion (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

The mis-labelling of any contentious idea as "trolling" - that is, as communication designed to elicit an angry response for comedy value - is a major contributor to WP's growing inability to host coherent discussions. Outside of the putrefied atmosphere of usenet, the word is almost always a device to discredit contributions by devaluing the contributor.

Dawkins, like most "trolls", is not guilty.

Just hide the images behind links. That's the sensible approach to handling controversial images; I was telling them to do that back during the cartoons controversy.

You can't really "troll" an entire religion.

You can try. I'm thinking of Richard Dawkins :D He probably doesn't even stop at trolling just one religion :D

The mis-labelling of any contentious idea as "trolling" - that is, as communication designed to elicit an angry response for comedy value - is a major contributor to WP's growing inability to host coherent discussions. Outside of the putrefied atmosphere of usenet, the word is almost always a device to discredit contributions by devaluing the contributor.

Dawkins, like most "trolls", is not guilty.

Ah UseOnceAndDestroy, you finally speak, welcome to the Review. I just hope you don't self-terminate now.

I don't understand why this is a problem. The Judaism article contains about 35 instances of the word "God"; should we remove those too?

I don't understand why this is a problem. The Judaism article contains about 35 instances of the word "God"; should we remove those too?

Not quite the same. Observant Jews can write the name of God. More here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...me.html#Writing

I don't understand why this is a problem. The Judaism article contains about 35 instances of the word "God"; should we remove those too?

Not quite the same. Observant Jews can write the name of God. More here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...me.html#Writing

No, it's not quite the same, I admit. But an informative encyclopedia (which Wikipedia pretends to want to be) shouldn't have to obey religious restrictions, even if failing to do so might offend people.

If depictions of Muhammad come down, Piss Christ had better not be far behind.

Given that Moslems revere Jesus as a prophet, what would happen if they complained about a depiction of Jesus as being offensive to Moslems?

On Jews writing the name of God, I actually found a case on Wikisource where someone amended "lord" to "L-rd" in a poem extracted from a Jewish prayer book, although "lord" was how it appeared in the prayer book.

From watching AN/I recently, probably many are aware of this petition which has now gardnered more than 18,000 signatures:

The originator of this petition, Mr. Faraz Ahmad/[[User:Farazilu]]

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-o...-from-wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad

has been blocked indefinitely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=User:Farazilu

due to (surprise!) somehow-related interests in Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hi...#Hitler_as_Hero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holo...about_Holocaust

So, 1) stop showing depictions of Muhammad and 2) start denying or supporting the Holocaust. Not certain myself how these tie together, but he's not the first commentator to have drawn this connection (e.g. Ahmadinejad.)

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Bad move. Now he can tell the World that he was blocked on Wikipedia for protesting off-Wiki about their insult to Moslem susceptibilirties.

I think the word you are looking for is sensibilities.

I think the word you are looking for is sensibilities.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/susceptibility

has been blocked indefinitely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=User:Farazilu

due to (surprise!) somehow-related interests in Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hi...#Hitler_as_Hero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holo...about_Holocaust

I haven't followed Farazilu extensively, but are you sure he believes this or it is a reaction to what he views as double standards. People are purposely including sacriligious material in the Muhammad article, but he just proved that are do purposely filter the material in other articles in order to protect our agreed upon Western sensibilities (we don't give unnecessary prominence to fringe theories or views.)

So, 1) stop showing depictions of Muhammad and 2) start denying or supporting the Holocaust. Not certain myself how these tie together, but he's not the first commentator to have drawn this connection (e.g. Ahmadinejad.)

"Not certain myself how these tie together"? The parallels are very similar. In the Holocaust article the undesirable material was relegated to the "See also" section, which is what I was arguing where we should limit the depictions of Muhammad too. What I don't think you are grasping is that showing depictions of Muhammad in Islamic cultures is as fringe as denying the Holocaust in Western cultures.

But not coincidentally, both of these topics are seized upon by people looking to bait either Jews or Muslims. The fact that you only see one side of the issue is more surprising to me.

Wikipedia rightly doesn't allow for the baiting of Jews (notice the banning of Farazilu), but I ask, why does it continue to allow the baiting of Muslims?

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

Given that Moslems revere Jesus as a prophet, what would happen if they complained about a depiction of Jesus as being offensive to Moslems?

On Jews writing the name of God, I actually found a case on Wikisource where someone amended "lord" to "L-rd" in a poem extracted from a Jewish prayer book, although "lord" was how it appeared in the prayer book.

This is an actual request from 20,000 adherents of a religion that is a vulnerable minority in the context of the Wikipedia Community. The request is based on well establish doctrines in their faith. You are now equating this request with speculative concerns, not actually made by anyone, from the people who comprise the overwhelming religious background, Judeo-Christianity, prevailing on Wikipedia, and therefore need no protection from the bigotry of the majority.

I haven't followed Farazilu extensively, but are you sure he believes this or it is a reaction to what he views as double standards. People are purposely including sacriligious material in the Muhammad article, but he just proved that are do purposely filter the material in other articles in order to protect our agreed upon Western sensibilities (we don't give unnecessary prominence to fringe theories or views.)

Agreed, he was just being deliberately offensive with the "Hitler is a hero" edit to try and make it clear how offensive the depictions of Muhammed are to Muslims.

Given that Moslems revere Jesus as a prophet, what would happen if they complained about a depiction of Jesus as being offensive to Moslems?

You are now equating this request with speculative concerns, not actually made by anyone

Nothing speculative. A Moslem cleric did once complain about Madonna, saying that her treatment of Jesus was offensive to Moslems - I think it was her song "Like a Prayer". He got laughed at by the press, though.

This happened on Wikipedia? Or just some cleric somewhere sometime in some context did this so now that is a reason to ignore legitimate concerns of Muslims? 20,000 Muslims have signed a petition to ask WP to stop the offensive images. This is the kind of external pressure that could make WP act in a socially responsible manner and ought to be encouraged.

Christians are certainly not in a any similar position relative to majoritarian bigotry on Wikipedia, nor by the wider Western culture as the cleric's treatment by the press indicated.

Why is it "socially responsible" to give in to pressure? Neutral Point of View requires that one not base editorial decisions on what any religion (majority or minority, persecuted or persecutor) thinks on an issue.

Why is it "socially responsible" to give in to pressure? Neutral Point of View requires that one not base editorial decisions on what any religion (majority or minority, persecuted or persecutor) thinks on an issue.

Because Muslims obviously want to look at the Muhammed article and many are going to merely because it comes up first for a search on Google due to wikipedia's artificially inflated ranking. It is a well known fact that depictions of Muhammed offend muslims, so, why not just link to the image in the Muhammed article?

Why is it "socially responsible" to give in to pressure? Neutral Point of View requires that one not base editorial decisions on what any religion (majority or minority, persecuted or persecutor) thinks on an issue.

And "hello" (ding, ding, ding, ding, ding) cultural perceptions of "acceptable" range far and wide of that of either Dan Tobias, or the U.S. First Amendment definition. Hence it isn't a matter of suppression of free speech (or free print) but respect for differing cultural norms.

I don't have issue with freedom of expression. But this kind of publication not only upsets Muslims greatly, but it causes many to become violent. And muslims who aren't normally violent, mind you, get upset at this.

Having said that, there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in the whole muslim cartoon debacle debate. The Danish images were publised by an Egyptian newspaper without comment, uproar or threat to the Egyptian paper But the French, Norwegian and Danish papers that published the images were attacked verbally and threatened physically

For Wikipedia's sake, it was best to take the high road.

ps: on another train of thought, maybe if they publish it, Wikipedia will get a nice solid fatwa from Al-Zawahiri. hmmmmmmm. Maybe Wikipedia SHOULD publish it.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

For Wikipedia's sake, it was best to take the high road.

More importantly for the future of collaborative and encyclopedic projects we should understand why Wikipedia is incapable of this kind of editorial self restraint. They have made the values and prejudices of their "community" the sole basis for making decisions. They are demographically and culturally stunted. They have no mechanism for input from other stakeholders. They are arrogant and dismissive toward other's views.

More importantly for the future of collaborative and encyclopedic projects we should understand why Wikipedia is incapable of this kind of editorial self restraint. They have made the values and prejudices of their "community" the sole basis for making decisions. They are demographically and culturally stunted. They have no mechanism for input from other stakeholders. They are arrogant and dismissive toward other's views.

A nice friendly fatwa from Al-Quaida, or whatever, against them as a symbol of American global oppression might change that obstinacy.

The idea of:

Jimbo Wales on the run, like Salmon Rushdie, defender of the truth....

... Jimbo Wales, freedom fighter for free speech.

... Jimbo Wales, former porn dealer, reedeming himself by promoting freedom of expression online.


(IMG:http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/gems/jimmy-wales.png)
PLEASE.

Let's be serious here:

The minute that it takes PRINCIPLES to keep those Muhammed images UP,
They will come DOWN.

CRASHING DOWN, in fact.

For the moment, "the community" (and the Sole Flounder) has it bass-ackwards. (as usual). And I'm "shocked". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Jimbo is just too simple to quickly ascertain that (given the Jimbo Wales is Wikipedia's editor-in-chief) he's responsible for that the images are up there. And in that light, publication of images of Muhammed on Wikipedia is against Jimbo Wales' personal best interests™. Jimbo Wales's personal interest is the usual metric for Wikipedia-anything, as well as the basis for any decision he makes.

Once he processes this otherwise-obvious-to-anyone-else-fact, he'll claim was taken for moral purposes. (guffaw) And blame the Arbcome (double guffaw).

He just needs some to 'splany it to him.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I don't have issue with freedom of expression. But this kind of publication not only upsets Muslims greatly, but it causes many to become violent. And muslims who aren't normally violent, mind you, get upset at this.

I don't think there is the potential for violence, but rather its unnecessary to simply insult one group because you can. As I said before, the current image of Muhammad doesn't add anything of substance to the current article.

Those claiming that they are anti-censorship are not being truthful, rather they are declaring that they have the right to insult another culture. There is no great hidden truth that Muslims are trying to censor here, rather they are just looking for a modicum of respect but we apparently aren't going to offer that because "Muslim baiting" is too much fun.

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

"Not certain myself how these tie together"? The parallels are very similar. In the Holocaust article the undesirable material was relegated to the "See also" section, which is what I was arguing where we should limit the depictions of Muhammad too. What I don't think you are grasping is that showing depictions of Muhammad in Islamic cultures is as fringe as denying the Holocaust in Western cultures.

But not coincidentally, both of these topics are seized upon by people looking to bait either Jews or Muslims. The fact that you only see one side of the issue is more surprising to me.

Wikipedia rightly doesn't allow for the baiting of Jews (notice the banning of Farazilu), but I ask, why does it continue to allow the baiting of Muslims?

Yes, but why always Hitler and holocaust denial…a subject that comes up in many Middle eastern political contexts, not just those related to depictions of Muhammad? Other commentators have made the much more direct cognitive connection that Jews are somehow behind the Danish cartoons and other slights to Muslims.

The same charge is found from time to time in the Wikipedia debate, not just re editors, but even the medieval Muslim artists themselves (one had converted to Islam from Judaism.) It's not at all an arbitrary example, but one aimed at exactly who many Muslims believe is the source of their political problems generally, and depictions in particular.

Some prominent Muslim figures, such as Ahmadinejad, have not only drawn the cartoon-holocaust censorship connection, but have also questioned the holocaust on its own (having nothing to do with making a point about the Danish cartoons.)

In this instance, it could well be what he really believes; proof, then, that Westerners are happy to suppress even elephant-in-the-room-level truths if the right chosen people ask.

They have made the values and prejudices of their "community" the sole basis for making decisions. They are demographically and culturally stunted.

That's true of all publications; they reflect the sensibilities of their writers, editors, and projected readership. The arrogance here, I believe, is in the pretense that English Wikipedia can somehow transcend cultural norms and become value-free.

Freedom from religious censorship, particularly vis-a-vis Christianity is a Western value which was very deliberately cultivated through centuries of strife. In this history, the church could not credibly speak for the community as a whole vs. another community, because it was Christians themselves who challenged, and nowadays ignore, these limits. Muslim petitioners have three advantages relative to Christian would-be censors 1) they can claim to speak for the entire Muslim community, without anyone knowing any better. Are there zero Muslims who want to see and read whatever they like, regardless of religious mores? 2) they can repackage it as a discrimination/civil rights issue, which is difficult for Christians because most media blasphemers are themselves Christian (at least by birth) 3) there is an underlying threat of violence, which hasn't been operative between Christians and dissenters for centuries (it used to get quite bloody.)

They have made the values and prejudices of their "community" the sole basis for making decisions. They are demographically and culturally stunted.

That's true of all publications; they reflect the sensibilities of their writers, editors, and projected readership. The arrogance here, I believe, is in the pretense that English Wikipedia can somehow transcend cultural norms and become value-free.

That's not so. Other publications are fettered by pesky things called libel laws.

They have made the values and prejudices of their "community" the sole basis for making decisions. They are demographically and culturally stunted.

That's true of all publications; they reflect the sensibilities of their writers, editors, and projected readership. The arrogance here, I believe, is in the pretense that English Wikipedia can somehow transcend cultural norms and become value-free.

Freedom from religious censorship, particularly vis-a-vis Christianity is a Western value which was very deliberately cultivated through centuries of strife.

I don't think this is a censorship issue. The image does not add anything to the article, it contains no significant truth that degrades the article if it is removed. To claim that this is censorship is to degrade real instances of censorship.

In this history, the church could not credibly speak for the community as a whole vs. another community, because it was Christians themselves who challenged, and nowadays ignore, these limits. Muslim petitioners have three advantages relative to Christian would-be censors 1) they can claim to speak for the entire Muslim community, without anyone knowing any better. Are there zero Muslims who want to see and read whatever they like, regardless of religious mores? 2) they can repackage it as a discrimination/civil rights issue, which is difficult for Christians because most media blasphemers are themselves Christian (at least by birth) 3) there is an underlying threat of violence, which hasn't been operative between Christians and dissenters for centuries (it used to get quite bloody.)

The above is so general that I can't really process it. I can respond in equally general phraseology but that doesn't make for a coherent argument. I would remind you that the inquisitive and democratic aspect of "the West" has its origins in the Greeks, a culture which preceded Christianity.

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

Why is it "socially responsible" to give in to pressure? Neutral Point of View requires that one not base editorial decisions on what any religion (majority or minority, persecuted or persecutor) thinks on an issue.

Yes, look at the undo pressure these people are applying:

Dec 29, 2007, Anonymous , Pennsylvania
please,Islam means Peace.we want peace spreads everywhere. stop anything that can make any problems.

Dec 29, 2007, Jamil Al-Jabi , Canada
Hello, According to our beliefs as Muslims, it is totally unacceptable and insulting to produce or publish pictures/drawings of our prohpet Muhammad or any other prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all). so please remove this picture and we will be thankful for your understanding and cooperation

Dec 29, 2007, Luay Al Halaiqa , United Arab Emirates
Please respect our desire.

Dec 29, 2007, Eyad Musa , Saudi Arabia
please remove the picture of Prophet Moahhamed from your site.

Dec 29, 2007, Nehad El-Shammaa , Egypt
Please remove the picture of prophet Muhammad (prayers and peace of Allah be upon him)

--- excerpts from petitioners

Maybe WP should form another secret list to counter such abuse?

I find many pictures on WP offensive, the pornographic ones. No doubt people of many religions would agree with me. Do you think that would cut any ice with JzG and the other WP:ILIKEIT supporters of "no censorship"?

Given that Moslems revere Jesus as a prophet, what would happen if they complained about a depiction of Jesus as being offensive to Moslems?

On Jews writing the name of God, I actually found a case on Wikisource where someone amended "lord" to "L-rd" in a poem extracted from a Jewish prayer book, although "lord" was how it appeared in the prayer book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moslem

Redirects to Muslem.

It is sometimes spelt "Moslem", which some regard as offensive.[3]

Muslems hated and killed Christians in the Crusades.


There's also "G-d". Though the being's actual name is supposed to be YHVH and people pronounce it different ways. In Mormonism they say it's Jehovah who is also the name of Jesus and say YHVH is really Jesus and that he is the brother of Lucifer and their father is the real creator. I don't think their father has a name. Of course gnosticism, the heretical early Christianity first banned by the Catholic church then eliminated in the Middle East when Islam took over, said YHVH was the demi-urge and evil and his father, the real god, was good.

What's the problem with Muslims observing the taboo while non-Muslims ignore it?

The problem is that totem poles are prone to topple.

(Or at least become prone after they topple.)

20,000 Muslims politely, even graciously, request that Wikipedia remove offensive images from the article on Mohammad. This is a well established and important doctrine of their religion.

What's the problem with Muslims observing the taboo while non-Muslims ignore it?

I think it is a matter of desecration, although I can hardly speak for the offended Muslims. The images are either present in the article or not. If they are present the harm of the desecration has occurred and it can't be avoided by ignoring it. I wish we had some Muslim participation in this discussion.

I think some kind of technical fix might be remotely possible. Tags could instruct a browser to display or not display the images based on the preference of the user. This might have many other applications such as dealing with British vs US English preferences. I don't know if this is a good thing though. It might lead to balkanization on level that would cause more problems than it solves.

I think it is a matter of desecration...

Compare desecration to vandalism, criticism, ridicule, and parody.

Perhaps the WP needs yet another policy guideline: WP:BadSpite.

Of course, any such policy guideline would probably be caricatured as WP:NeenerNeener.

I think some kind of technical fix might be remotely possible. Tags could instruct a browser to display or not display the images based on the preference of the user. This might have many other applications such as dealing with British vs US English preferences. I don't know if this is a good thing though. It might lead to balkanization on level that would cause more problems than it solves.

That's the best way, in my opinion. There should be an "opt-out" option, for all image types.

Personally, I'd guess that most Muslim (background) readers will choose to see the images, if it's up to them. That's what this is about, really, is making it not be up to individuals. If it's up to individuals what they read, sooner or later, most people won't believe this nonsense anyhow, just as it was in the West with Christianity and Judaism. The parts that are worthwhile still survive and are taken seriously, but the rank mythology is, for most, more or less an embarrassment. Islam will wind up in the same place, if Muslims don't fight this corruption.

How much easier things would be if we didn't read one another's media, and didn't have to agree.

I wish we had some Muslim participation in this discussion.

You can visit Talk:Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180971860 (pre-archiving)

for a sense of what we're missing.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

I wish we had some Muslim participation in this discussion.

You can visit Talk:Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180971860 (pre-archiving)

for a sense of what we're missing.

What's your point here?

There should be an "opt-out" option, for all image types.

For those who strictly adhere to the Second Commandment...

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

...there is the feature found in most browsers of not displaying any images, whatsoever.

I wish we had some Muslim participation in this discussion.

You can visit Talk:Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180971860 (pre-archiving)

for a sense of what we're missing.

What's your point here?

My point is - as with what I'd excerpted above regarding Muslim perceptions of the Jewish role in the depictions controversy - we should let Muslim petitioners speak for themselves, even where they defy our own prejudices about what they should believe and why. The argument which they are presenting is in several respects quite different from the argument that others are making on their behalf.

Oh?

Besides the fact that this news item is from 2005, 1) "the barring of singer Cat Stevens and Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan from entering the United States" and 2) "the arrest of a Muslim lawyer from Oregon jailed as a "material witness" in the terrorist bombing of Madrid trains based on a fingerprint that turned out to belong to someone else." hardly count as spontaneous communal violence towards dissenters. Try Pakistan (but that's our fault, too, no doubt.) Please.

Everything about cheese is offensive to me. If Wikipedia doesn't remove every reference to cheese, I will kill Jimbo Wales and blow up their servers.

Then there are the martyrs who bear witness to the sacred fromage, as they defiantly exclaim, "What a friend we have in cheeses!"

... we should let Muslim petitioners speak for themselves, even where they defy our own prejudices about what they should believe and why. The argument which they are presenting is in several respects quite different from the argument that others are making on their behalf.

I'm good with that. I thought you might be saying that I would regret Muslim participation if we actually had any.

When I look at the Petition discussion on the article talk page.:

19000 users want an image removed ...
so, if consensus and democracy mean anything, it should be ... http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-o...-from-wikipedia

or are only opinions of westerners allowed to matter here? Aliibn (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC) — Aliibn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy, and consensus does not work that way. To understand why such petitions make is essentially impossible to ever consider removing the images now, see WP:CANVASS. Cheers, WilyD 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an example of bullying in its most blatant form. Wikipedia editors are not at all likely to be impressed by such tactics. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
As others have already said, the petition is meaningless. For starters, it's easy for a handful of people to forge hundreds, if not thousands, of signatures. A simple can fill in the petition form for you with only a few random variables to make them appear different. This is especially relevant when you see that many of the so call "signatures" are exactly the same with only minor changes. This is why all online petitions are never taken seriously no mater who does the petition or why the petition was created.
Second, consensus must be formed on Wikipedia. It can't be created off-Wiki in a clearly bias venue and then brought here as if what goes on elsewhere applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has policies against sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Accounts with no edit history other then in a specific issue are often ignored for this particular reason.
Third, the petition is irrelevant as a poll as there are no other options to choose from. Either you agree and sign the petition or you don't and move one without the ability to voice your disagreement. Also, polls are only used to enhance a discussion about an issue; it is not a substitute for discussion. (see WP:POLLS
Fourth, the people who want the images removed do not understand Wikipedia's policies against censorship along with the content disclaimers. These actually forbid the removal of content because someone may/is offended by it. Just because there is a cultural taboo from one group doesn't mean that Wikipedia must oblige their taboo. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well said, Farix. Snowolf How can I help? 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written from an outside perspective; it is not written for any specific audience, nor is it written from the perspective of a Muslim. As mentioned above, we do not vote or petition at Wikipedia; there are no referendums at Wikipedia. Things placed on Wikipedia are (ideally) factual, unbiased, uncensored, and informative, even if they are potentially offensive or hypersensitive. It is unfortunate that pictures of Muhammad have offended many Muslims, but this topic has already been discussed thoroughly and these threads are becoming redundant. It should be noted, however, that Shiites often times do, in fact, depict Muhammad and (more commonly) Imam Hussein. The view that Muhammad should be free of any depiction, thus, is a sectarian issue; it is not even a universal position throughout Islam. Even if it were, the fact of the matter still remains: Wikipedia does not censor and Wikipedia is not a democracy. I do not know whether or not it is a violation of censorship policy, but perhaps we could include a warning of these images at the top of the page on Muhammad? This is becoming nauseating. Regardless, the notion that we are going to adhere to Islamic taboos, as already mentioned, is out of the question. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't include a disclaimer at the top of the article - Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The article is already covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which says Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to and Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. --Hut 8.5 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus means consensus of editors on wiki. Anyway, millions of people might want the image kept, to some extent for all we know, they just haven't made a petition because it is being kept, and because they have great numbers but don't care enough. We went to war against some countries precisely to encourage democracy rather than a smaller but extremely irate group imposing their will and beliefs on others. Merkinsmum 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
---emphasis added

What I see is sincere Muslims (some perhaps not confirmed Wikipedians) attempting to get Wikipedians to acknowledge their concerns. They are meet with a lot of arrogant wonkery from a bunch of condescending insensitive hacks who feel that the concern of those outside WP need not be addressed in any fashion whatsoever. Wikipedians matter in this "discussion." Muslims don't.

This is more insulting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

"Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad."

The problem is that it appears to be true. All Islamic records (the only sources) agree in this.

Yeah, and reliable secondary sources cast doubt on it.

I wish we had some Muslim participation in this discussion.

You can visit Talk:Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180971860 (pre-archiving)

for a sense of what we're missing.

What's your point here?

My point is - as with what I'd excerpted above regarding Muslim perceptions of the Jewish role in the depictions controversy - we should let Muslim petitioners speak for themselves, even where they defy our own prejudices about what they should believe and why. The argument which they are presenting is in several respects quite different from the argument that others are making on their behalf.

Oh?

Besides the fact that this news item is from 2005, 1) "the barring of singer Cat Stevens and Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan from entering the United States" and 2) "the arrest of a Muslim lawyer from Oregon jailed as a "material witness" in the terrorist bombing of Madrid trains based on a fingerprint that turned out to belong to someone else." hardly count as spontaneous communal violence towards dissenters. Try Pakistan (but that's our fault, too, no doubt.) Please.

0ne of the advantages of having a world-spanning military is that we can export our communal violence.
Oh, and yeah, Pakistan's our fault.


Incidentally, how do you know that some of us aren't Muslim? Because we aren't threatening fatwas? Please.

The lines of argument being presented here seem to be along the lines of "You'd better respect the sensibilities of Muslims, because they can be violent mother[bleep]ers if they're angered." While this might produce real-world pragmatic reactions to avoid stepping on their toes because they're the proverbial ten ton gorilla in the room, it's hardly a path to true honest respect for religious diversity. People are unlikely to come out of such a conflict (even if it ends in a more or less peaceful truce without anybody's sensibilities being directly offended) with genuine liking or respect for Muslims; rather, they'll just think of them as bullies who always get their way because they're so strong and determined.

Of course, there's also NPOV. Put simply, any image in that article would be non-notable, a fringe viewpoint that we shouldn't include.

The fact that people want to include it has nothing to do with WP not being cesnored, and everything to do with armchair warriors striking a blow against fundamentalism.

Everything about cheese is offensive to me. If Wikipedia doesn't remove every reference to cheese, I will kill Jimbo Wales and blow up their servers.

No, cheese is fine... it's just rutabagas that need to be suppressed.

This post has been edited by dtobias:

When I took a world religions class in college, I remember seeing an old Ottoman picture of Muhammad depicted as a horse with a swordsman riding on top of him. I don't know what the Ottomans were thinking then by making that image!

So historically there have been Muslim depictions of the Prophet. Does anybody know when someone finally said that was blasphemous or has this been a subject of major debate in Islam since the beginning?

I looked at Commons and there are pictures there that were made by Muslims of Muhammad at some point.

I suppose the question an encyclopedia would ask is "Do we need images of Muhammad in this article in order to communicate the ideas herein effectively?" You don't need images for everything, you know.

But can Wikipedia editors detach themselves enough in order to consider moral and editorial ethics? It seems they can't.

Does Brittanica or other encyclopedias have images of the Prophet? Let's look at the precedents.

The World Book Encyclopedia does not have a picture of Muhammed.

Everything about cheese is offensive to me. If Wikipedia doesn't remove every reference to cheese, I will kill Jimbo Wales and blow up their servers.

No, cheese is fine... it's just rutabagas that need to be suppressed.

I don't care about your opinion. I'm just saying that cheese is offensive to all my values and that I will do whatever it takes to remove it from Wikipedia.

You think I'm irrational or mad? It's just that my values are different and that you have to respect them.

Or else.

I'll take "Or Else" for twenty Quatloos, Alex.

I don't care about your opinion. I'm just saying that cheese is offensive to all my values and that I will do whatever it takes to remove it from Wikipedia.

Let's compromise. Ban cheese, and also rutabagas. Ban broccoli and cauliflower too while they're at it... I can't stand those vegetables.

Yes, look at the undo pressure these people are applying:

Dec 29, 2007, Jamil Al-Jabi , Canada
Hello, According to our beliefs as Muslims, it is totally unacceptable and insulting to produce or publish pictures/drawings of our prohpet Muhammad or any other prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all). so please remove this picture and we will be thankful for your understanding and cooperation
--- excerpts from petitioners

Maybe WP should form another secret list to counter such abuse?

OK, let me get this straight:

Muslims consider photographs of Muhammed (or any other prophet) to be "haram" (sinful), but there are pictures of Jesus all over the place (Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet) and they haven't complained about that.

That's hypocritical.

In the interests of bringing this thread back on-topic, I'll not be responding to irrelevant posts, however disagreeable, and I urge others to do the same…okay, back to the depictions:

OK, let me get this straight:

Muslims consider photographs of Muhammed (or any other prophet) to be "haram" (sinful), but there are pictures of Jesus all over the place (Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet) and they haven't complained about that.

That's hypocritical.

Not if understood correctly (and, actually, it's even worse: there's a depiction of God in the article God, which is far more unambiguously forbidden than a depiction of any prophet.) I asked about this on several occasions. The issue boils down to perceived communal ownership: the Jesus article belongs to Christians, thus Christian practices are followed even though Muslims don't agree with them. God, too, belongs to Christians, because the article isn't "Allah" (though of course it is, in direct translation.) Muhammad, on the other hand, is the communal property of Muslims, thus Islamic practices should be followed on this article.

If you read Talk:Muhammad, the same people who are complaining about the images also say that Christians and Jews (atheists, by this millet-logic, are varieties of Christians and Jews) have no business writing articles about Muhammad at all. And look at the sources cited: where non-Muslims see secular academic scholars, Muslims often see a list of Christians and Jews:

"why i only allow you people to edit this article and then say its a article about Islam but in reality its just represent bulk non Islamic views of Muhammad(PBUH)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180199734

"Well , if you want to write about Islam and Muslims, its not you who should do so , you have no right to claim things about Islam and Muslims while you are not even a Muslim…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180625361

"But most of the articles releated to Islam are derived from Western, Non-Muslim sources while Christian and Jewish articles are written with Christian and Jewish perspective."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=179224376

"…Muhammed article should be re-written according to muslim scholars… after all Muslims do not learn about Muhammad's life according to the Oxford dictionary, Watt and or Richard Bell…This article needs to be completely re-written according to Islamic history by Islamic scholars…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170957998

The reaction to the images doesn't draw its power only from religious taboo, but the perception of communal humiliation.Here, Muhammad is portrayed as a disgraced relative:

"Mr. Bush is very popular, if he says Merzbow's sister looks like this when naked, will you justfy that he is the president of America so his imaginative naked picture about your sister should be cited everywhere? How will you feel? Enjoy?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107092921

"Since there are no prohibitions , then i can make a page about someones father , with a draw that puts him on a dog body ??"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180659639

From this perspective, Muslims are obliged to defend their communal honor. The point of contention is real in itself, but schematically is as arbitrary as the proverbial chip on the shoulder.

I don't care about your opinion. I'm just saying that cheese is offensive to all my values and that I will do whatever it takes to remove it from Wikipedia.

You think I'm irrational or mad? It's just that my values are different and that you have to respect them.

Or else.

Ok, go to the Middle East and stand in the middle of the souk and shout your opinions about Mohammed and pictures.

Rather than be attacked, my guess is that you'd be taken by the hand, led to a tea shop and patiently explained why your point of view isn't workable there. Even if the people explaining it made 50 dollars a month, they'd refuse that you pay for the tea. They'd probably invite you home to dinner too.

Unless you do it waving a picture of Mohammed or one of those cartoons. Then it might be a bit uglier.

Muslims consider photographs of Muhammed (or any other prophet) to be "haram" (sinful), but there are pictures of Jesus all over the place (Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet) and they haven't complained about that.

That's hypocritical.

Don't as anyone to explain the logic behind it. Frankly, they would get upset if Jesus were insulted too, though not as hard as they get upset about Mohammed. The depiction aspect of Mohammed is a big deal.

There are other lacks of logic I've found, which I already discussed with you, including differing reasons for wearing the veil depending on which country you are in, or not wearing it at all, which are not consistent. But "whatever". It is what it is.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Ah UseOnceAndDestroy, you finally speak, welcome to the Review. I just hope you don't self-terminate now.

Aw thanks, that's nice.

(Dammit, you made me use it twice)

The Petition now has 21,734 signatures.

Dec 31, 2007, Omar Alnahdi , Colorado
Everyone has a belief. We believe that our (prophet) should not be pictured. Is that difficult to be honored? We respect all (prophets) and other beliefs; we expect others to respect ours.
---Signature 21,704 (minor spelling correction added)

I don't care about your opinion. I'm just saying that cheese is offensive to all my values and that I will do whatever it takes to remove it from Wikipedia.

Let's compromise. Ban cheese, and also rutabagas. Ban broccoli and cauliflower too while they're at it... I can't stand those vegetables.

Daniel, the most suitable compromise would be to just redirect Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, and Buddha to "Clown".

Greg

We respect all (prophets) and other beliefs; we expect others to respect ours.

It's true that Muslims respect Christian and Jewish prophets, but this isn't much of a concession, as Islam claims them as its own.

That's distinct from respecting the peoples who hold other beliefs - rants against Christians and especially Jews themselves are perfectly acceptable, it's only the religions which are off-limits, basically the opposite of the West in this respect - and very different from respecting the rights of individuals to arrive at their own beliefs.

The West may as well respond, "We respect the right of your individuals to believe (or not) as they please and publish what they like without religious interference, why can't you respect ours?" It's no concession to offer something someone isn't asking for and doesn't want. No one in the West is asking for Muslims to refrain from drawing or even mocking Jesus, actually; it's just their assumption that this would naturally be important to us.

"Those arguing for removal of the images have been restrained in their arguments on the article talk page as well."

You've got to be kidding. Maybe restrained by someone's standards, but telling non-Muslims that they have no business participating is pretty provocative…and if that weren't enough, here's the initiator of the petition on Talk:Muhammad:

"So, do you think that Hitler was a hero?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180225871
"Thant is my personal opinion and depend what aspect of his life we are discussing…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180226045

I guess the bar is set so low that anything short of a hostile lunatic rant will qualify as "restrained."

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

We respect all (prophets) and other beliefs; we expect others to respect ours.

It's true that Muslims respect Christian and Jewish prophets, but this isn't much of a concession, as Islam claims them as its own.

That's distinct from respecting the peoples who hold other beliefs - rants against Christians and especially Jews themselves are perfectly acceptable, it's only the religions which are off-limits, basically the opposite of the West in this respect - and very different from respecting the rights of individuals to arrive at their own beliefs.

The West may as well respond, "We respect the right of your individuals to believe (or not) as they please and publish what they like without religious interference, why can't you respect ours?" It's no concession to offer something someone isn't asking for and doesn't want. No one in the West is asking for Muslims to refrain from drawing or even mocking Jesus, actually; it's just their assumption that this would naturally be important to us.

"Those arguing for removal of the images have been restrained in their arguments on the article talk page as well."

You've got to be kidding. Maybe restrained by someone's standards, but telling non-Muslims that they have no business participating is pretty provocative…and if that weren't enough, here's the initiator of the petition on Talk:Muhammad:

"So, do you think that Hitler was a hero?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180225871
"Thant is my personal opinion and depend what aspect of his life we are discussing…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180226045

I guess the bar is set so low that anything short of a hostile lunatic rant will qualify as "restrained."

These remarks by initiator of the petition, Faraz Ahmed, are despicable and I will in no manner justify any statement that would in any measure characterize Hitler as a hero in any manner or fashion. He did not make the remark in the context of the petition. The petitioners (and myself) did not have any occasion to be aware of his views on this matter, much less endorse them. That statement is not any part of the subject matter of the petition. The petitioners, as indicated by the specific section in the article talk page addressing the petition, have maintained the high level of discourse I have described. Their patient and dignified petition, along with the moderation they have repeatedly shown in comments placed on the petition are deserving of respect and consideration no matter the failings of Mr. Ahmed.

The petition is currently at 22,750 signature. The good will and patience demonstrated by the petitioners continues to astounds me.

Jan 1, 2008, Abdullah Shuraim , United Kingdom
Islam religon respects all religions, and we muslims expect the same respect in return.. and our prophet is the most repected and beloved to all of us.therefore, we will not accept any disrespect or humaliaitions toward him.. thank you

Jan 1, 2008, Fatma Aboushanab , Egypt
As a Muslim, I do not agree that a fake picture of the prophet 'Muhammad', peace be upon him, becomes published in such a respectful website. I believe everything that is published in your site, and I trust it. So please do not take away this trust from millions of Muslims that use your website. Hope you respect our religion as you respect the rest of religions and as we respect yours! Thanks a lot

Faraz Ahmed has begun a worthy project with this petition. He has, however, forfeited the right to remain in leadership of this dignified cause by his hateful remarks. I would call on him to seek others, hopefully from within the established Muslim advocacy and civil rights community, to take up the leadership. This new leadership should disengage discussion inside the dysfunctional Wikipedia 'community" and redirect efforts toward insisting the WMF imposes the editorial restraint needed to remove the images by whatever means are required.

Jan 1, 2008, Fatma Aboushanab , Egypt
As a Muslim, I do not agree that a fake picture of the prophet 'Muhammad', peace be upon him, becomes published in such a respectful website. I believe everything that is published in your site, and I trust it. So please do not take away this trust from millions of Muslims that use your website. Hope you respect our religion as you respect the rest of religions and as we respect yours! Thanks a lot

Hmm I guess is we don't get a lot of readers from Egypt.. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

This Farazilu sounds a little fake to me - the misspellings seem a little too clichéd:

"I has created an Arbitration request this topic so top level administration in Wikipedia can be involved in this sensitive topic. you can see that can contribute in so your opinion can count "

"why i only allow you people to edit this article and then say its a article about Islam but in reality its just represent bulk non Islamic views of Muhammad"

Jan 1, 2008, Fatma Aboushanab , Egypt
As a Muslim, I do not agree that a fake picture of the prophet 'Muhammad', peace be upon him, becomes published in such a respectful website. I believe everything that is published in your site, and I trust it. So please do not take away this trust from millions of Muslims that use your website. Hope you respect our religion as you respect the rest of religions and as we respect yours! Thanks a lot

Hmm I guess is we don't get a lot of readers from Egypt.. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

This Farazilu sounds a little fake to me - the misspellings seem a little too clichéd:

"I has created an Arbitration request this topic so top level administration in Wikipedia can be involved in this sensitive topic. you can see that can contribute in so your opinion can count "

"why i only allow you people to edit this article and then say its a article about Islam but in reality its just represent bulk non Islamic views of Muhammad"

That occurred to me too, but I'm not in any position to make a serious assessment. His petition has certainly struck a resonate chord, whatever his story.

Nota bene: I have taken a considerable number of posts that veered off-topic, and moved them here.

This Farazilu sounds a little fake to me - the misspellings seem a little too clichéd:

Wait, so now the initiator of the petition is some kind of plant?

"The good will and patience demonstrated by the petitioners continues to astounds me."

What's so remarkably good willed about asking someone to change their content? What's so patient about signing a petition?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

"The good will and patience demonstrated by the petitioners continues to astounds me."

What's so remarkably good willed about asking someone to change their content? What's so patient about signing a petition?

Uh, I believe that the 'patience' referred to the not getting too upset at the entire thing to start with, and remaining civil and attempting to address this via personable communication, rather than shouting, or what have you. I too, find it patience. I hope they are successful, and that this doesn't cause some very badly hurt feelings of those muslims who are trying to work with Wikipedians. What a tough row to hoe.

Hmm I guess is we don't get a lot of readers from Egypt.. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they do. (or do you mean at Wikipedia Review? Even then, I'm sure some Egyptians read. Most Egpytians, even poor ones, speak English. And love international things.

Wikimania is in Egypt next year - Alexandria.

This Farazilu sounds a little fake to me - the misspellings seem a little too clichéd:

Uh, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (Freud). There seem to be more than one of this name on a quick Google search. But apparently the usual "if I haven't heard of it, it isn't true" at Wikipedia may apply here.

"I has created an Arbitration request this topic so top level administration in Wikipedia can be involved in this sensitive topic. you can see that can contribute in so your opinion can count "

Gosh, I hope that their faith isn't totally destroyed. It should be interesting what happens.

"why i only allow you people to edit this article and then say its a article about Islam but in reality its just represent bulk non Islamic views of Muhammad"

Perfectly valid point.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

19000 users want an image removed ....

so, if consensus and democracy mean anything, it should be ... http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-o...-from-wikipedia

or are only opinions of westerners allowed to matter here? Aliibn (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC) — Aliibn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy, and consensus does not work that way. To understand why such petitions make is essentially impossible to ever consider removing the images now, see WP:CANVASS. Cheers, WilyD 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of bullying in its most blatant form. Wikipedia editors are not at all likely to be impressed by such tactics. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As others have already said, the petition is meaningless. For starters, it's easy for a handful of people to forge hundreds, if not thousands, of signatures. A simple can fill in the petition form for you with only a few random variables to make them appear different. This is especially relevant when you see that many of the so call "signatures" are exactly the same with only minor changes. This is why all online petitions are never taken seriously no mater who does the petition or why the petition was created.

Second, consensus must be formed on Wikipedia. It can't be created off-Wiki in a clearly bias venue and then brought here as if what goes on elsewhere applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has policies against sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Accounts with no edit history other then in a specific issue are often ignored for this particular reason.

Third, the petition is irrelevant as a poll as there are no other options to choose from. Either you agree and sign the petition or you don't and move one without the ability to voice your disagreement. Also, polls are only used to enhance a discussion about an issue; it is not a substitute for discussion. (see WP:POLLS

Fourth, the people who want the images removed do not understand Wikipedia's policies against censorship along with the content disclaimers. These actually forbid the removal of content because someone may/is offended by it. Just because there is a cultural taboo from one group doesn't mean that Wikipedia must oblige their taboo. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Farix. Snowolf How can I help? 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written from an outside perspective; it is not written for any specific audience, nor is it written from the perspective of a Muslim. As mentioned above, we do not vote or petition at Wikipedia; there are no referendums at Wikipedia. Things placed on Wikipedia are (ideally) factual, unbiased, uncensored, and informative, even if they are potentially offensive or hypersensitive. It is unfortunate that pictures of Muhammad have offended many Muslims, but this topic has already been discussed thoroughly and these threads are becoming redundant. It should be noted, however, that Shiites often times do, in fact, depict Muhammad and (more commonly) Imam Hussein. The view that Muhammad should be free of any depiction, thus, is a sectarian issue; it is not even a universal position throughout Islam. Even if it were, the fact of the matter still remains: Wikipedia does not censor and Wikipedia is not a democracy. I do not know whether or not it is a violation of censorship policy, but perhaps we could include a warning of these images at the top of the page on Muhammad? This is becoming nauseating. Regardless, the notion that we are going to adhere to Islamic taboos, as already mentioned, is out of the question. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't include a disclaimer at the top of the article - Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The article is already covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which says Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to and Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. --Hut 8.5 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means consensus of editors on wiki. Anyway, millions of people might want the image kept, to some extent for all we know, they just haven't made a petition because it is being kept, and because they have great numbers but don't care enough. We went to war against some countries precisely to encourage democracy rather than a smaller but extremely irate group imposing their will and beliefs on others. Merkinsmum 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that simple Wikipedians realize what a gross disservice they are doing to their own cause here. If I'd only lived where I grew up, I might agree with the Wikipedians who are retorting so coldly. But I know that this action, and the attitudes they are putting forth, is terribly hurtful to the muslims writing on wiki and petitioning.

And it is quite serious. Not only related to violence threats - but also to the belief that muslims have of westerners respect for their values. This may well be the most socially irresponsible thing Wikipedia has ever done.

I can has arbitration?

This Farazilu sounds a little fake to me - the misspellings seem a little too clichéd:

Wait, so now the initiator of the petition is some kind of plant?

An "agent provocateur", quite possibly.

This Farazilu sounds a little fake to me - the misspellings seem a little too clichéd:

Wait, so now the initiator of the petition is some kind of plant?

An "agent provocateur", quite possibly.

I guess that would mean he wasn't sincere in wanting to advance the cause of Muslim's who were offended by the images? But he did do a very good job of accomplish exactly that. If you Google "petition Muslim Wikipedia" and dig in you find lots of Muslim discussion forums where this is discussed with great support. Clearly someone knew how to do effective outreach to this community and probably was able to present himself in a credible manner.

What I don't understand is someone out of the blue, obviously hostile to your cause asks, "is Hitler your hero?" and you don't send them packing as a troll. You don't say "no." You utterly discredit yourself on the verge of accomplishing something significant. So I'm puzzled. But it doesn't matter. What remains is an important grassroots movement is spawned that seeks to hold Wikipedia accountable. Faraz Ahmed is no longer the best person to lead it.

Some movements require leadership -- at least at first.

Some movements are sufficiently well entrenched that they don't require a spiritual leader. They take on a life of their own.

At least one person still believes Wikipedia needs a spiritual leader.

This Farazilu sounds a little fake to me - the misspellings seem a little too clichéd:

Wait, so now the initiator of the petition is some kind of plant?

An "agent provocateur", quite possibly.

You've GOT to be kidding. You don't think some kid in the Middle east could have organized this (and who knows if it is a kid).

I've lots of experience in the middle east, with everything from kings to cabbies. This seems quite legit to me. I think you underestimate people from smaller, perceived poorer countries. Any person there has access to a computer at a net cafe, and often for free from friends.

Farazilu doesn't sound fake to me at all, as a name. Just because we don't have a famous basketball player with that name doesn't mean it isn't a nickname convention. If you can confirm that theory with an Egyptian friend or reference, I'll withdraw this statement, but not until. In fact, I can ask some people I know if that looks legit. Not today, maybe not even this week - but I will later.

I can has arbitration?

If you meant "Icann", then "yes", they have legally enforcable international dispute resolution, out of the Dispute Settlement office of WIPO. It's a separate-but-attached part of WIPO, started by the current Director General of WIPO (and what probably got him propelled to the top).

But this unit (Icann DR) only addresses URL disputes (one of the first famous squatting cases was the Madonna squatting case, where she got her name back). Just an FYI, filing a case there costs only about 500 or 1000 dollars (I forget which). No lawyer needed.

But the muhammed cartoons on wiki isn't something they'd handle. There are other venues for that, and ones which could adjudicate and enforce internationally. Just not the Wipo-ICANN one. (and I know ICANN is based in the US, just that the DR stuff goes on in Europe).

This Farazilu sounds a little fake to me - the misspellings seem a little too clichéd:

Uh, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (Freud). There seem to be more than one of this name on a quick Google search. But apparently the usual "if I haven't heard of it, it isn't true" at Wikipedia may apply here.

"I has created an Arbitration request this topic so top level administration in Wikipedia can be involved in this sensitive topic. you can see that can contribute in so your opinion can count "

Gosh, I hope that their faith isn't totally destroyed. It should be interesting what happens.

"why i only allow you people to edit this article and then say its a article about Islam but in reality its just represent bulk non Islamic views of Muhammad"

Perfectly valid point.

I was saying the language that Farazilu used seemed a little too like "mock" muslim speak. Why has the petition only just been started when the images have been there for however many years?

The petition now has more than 25,000 signature (25,309) as of this post.

Are we going to be getting a count every few thousand or so? *rolls eyes*

No one takes sites like that seriously, anyone can spam the hell out of them with fake "signs", and religion and politic pushing people are very prone to doing things like that to try sway opinion

Are we going to be getting a count every few thousand or so? *rolls eyes*

No one takes sites like that seriously, anyone can spam the hell out of them with fake "signs", and religion and politic pushing people are very prone to doing things like that to try sway opinion

25,000 people from nations all over the world signing a petition specifically relating to Wikipedia is something of a big deal. The foundation for this drive seems to to numerous discussion boards on Muslim issues. The people who sign are not pushed into do so. They are glad to lend assistance.

Ok, you can have a report on every thousand. Allowing for my sleeping and working of course.

This reminds me of when the Church Times ran a poll on whether the Church of England should sell its shares in Caterpillar. Normally, these polls get a couple of hundred votes. That one got many thousands. The editors noted that because the vote was so large, the result of the poll was probably meaningless. (No, I don't get it either.)

Hey guys, look at this:

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF

That's the Farsi Wikipedia, and that's Muhammad flying around on the horse-like creature with the woman's head.

Are we going to be getting a count every few thousand or so? *rolls eyes*

No one takes sites like that seriously, anyone can spam the hell out of them with fake "signs", and religion and politic pushing people are very prone to doing things like that to try sway opinion

25,000 people from nations all over the world signing a petition specifically relating to Wikipedia is something of a big deal. The foundation for this drive seems to to numerous discussion boards on Muslim issues. The people who sign are not pushed into do so. They are glad to lend assistance.

Ok, you can have a report on every thousand. Allowing for my sleeping and working of course.

You just don't get it do you, the point is that anyone can make multiple "signs" very easily, "thousands of people around the world" is less likely than a few groups of people determined to push their point of view spamming away.

Hey guys, look at this:

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF

That's the Farsi Wikipedia, and that's Muhammad flying around on the horse-like creature with the woman's head.

You mean the person represented without features? Your point is?

This post has been edited by msharma:

Selina, I don't have a problem with you including the pic…but I do have a big problem with anyone adding to my posts and attributing the added material to me. As it happens, I'm fine with the addition, but I very much disagree with the idea that a sysop can add anything to my posts, especially without any note that material has been added by the moderators. This is an unethical practice, from which WR should desist. I defend the publication of this image, but for the record, I only included the link. A WR sysop added the image itself to my post.

You mean the person represented without features? Your point is?

The irony here is that very realistic - and hadith-consistent - depictions such as Maome.jpg are attacked as "fake" and "misinformation", while ludicruous myths as this one are thought vaguely acceptable (since they are acceptable to Shi'a, who while not rightly-guided are at least not rank unbelievers.) Maome.jpg is accurate in every verifiable detail: he did preach in Mecca after its conquest, forbidding intercalation, he did wear costly robes during this period, etc., the details of his face and hands match hadith. Muhammad never wore any kind of veil, was never said to be aflame, and this flying steed "Buraq" stuff is nonsense on its face…and this is the one that's acceptable?

Oh…"[my] point is" that just about every WP besides Arabic has images of Muhammad on the article Muhammad. Just a few (if I edit this post again, it's probably to add to this list):

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maom%C3%A9
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahoma
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahomet
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahomet
http://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BAhame%C3%B0
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D1%83%...%BC%D0%B0%D0%B4

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

fine I removed it, I was just trying to help - the picture on the page you linked is about 2 pages down so it wasn't immediately clear what you were talking about

fine I removed it, I was just trying to help - the picture on the page you linked is about 2 pages down so it wasn't immediately clear what you were talking about

I don't question that you were trying to help. By all means, post it again, I am 100% for it.

I think he is just saying that an editor's note is appropriate when someone's work is edited from the original. It gets back to attribution, which is an issue Jonny keeps harping on.

The reason a depiction is included in the Farsi wikipedia is that Shia Muslims, which Iranians mostly are allow depictions of Muhammed whereas Sunni muslims do not.

You mean the person represented without features? Your point is?

The irony here is that very realistic - and hadith-consistent - depictions such as Maome.jpg are attacked as "fake" and "misinformation", while ludicruous myths as this one are thought vaguely acceptable (since they are acceptable to Shi'a, who while not rightly-guided are at least not rank unbelievers.) Maome.jpg is accurate in every verifiable detail: he did preach in Mecca after its conquest, forbidding intercalation, he did wear costly robes during this period, etc., the details of his face and hands match hadith. Muhammad never wore any kind of veil, was never said to be aflame, and this flying steed "Buraq" stuff is nonsense on its face…and this is the one that's acceptable?

Oh…"[my] point is" that just about every WP besides Arabic has images of Muhammad on the article Muhammad. Just a few (if I edit this post again, it's probably to add to this list):

You can lecture to the offended Muslims all day long what their sensitivities ought to be. The fact remains that the petitioners are offended by the images. They have a well established tradition within their religion and culture supporting their request. It does not matter that Islam does not have a monolithic position on the matter. They are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect.

What is important as a critics of Wikipedia is not our opinions in this matter. Something important has occurred here that goes to the heart of Wikipedia inability to address concerns of stakeholder who are represented from inside "the community." What is important here is the issue highlights Wikipedia lack of editorial restraint. What is important here that a bunch of entitled amateur Wikipedian editors have responded to this serious and dignified request with a lot of acronyms beginning with "WP:xx." The cult of the amateur is incapable of addressing the concerns of offended members of a major world religion.

This why I believe it is time for the petitioners to disengage from WP processes. They should address their demands to the WMF Board of Trustee. If we are truly concerned with holding Wikipedia to standard of social responsibility we should support their efforts.

I was saying the language that Farazilu used seemed a little too like "mock" muslim speak.

You *know* that sounds like Durova saying that !! was too good of an editor, right?

ps: How many in-country muslims have you swapped emails with?

Why has the petition only just been started when the images have been there for however many years?

Revealing your lack of focus on the topic.... the cartoon debacle was from around March 2006, so "number of years" would not apply.

Revealing your lack of focus on the topic.... the cartoon debacle was from around March 2006, so "number of years" would not apply.

I know about the cartoon controversy. For Sunni muslims there should be no distinction between the image on the Muhammed article and the Muhammed cartoons should there? The image on the Muhammed article has been there for years.

You have to appreciate that in Islam, followers of all other religions are inferior beings who don't have the same rights as followers of the Prophet. And it ill behoves Christians to criticise them for that attitude.

You have to appreciate that in Islam, followers of all other religions are inferior beings who don't have the same rights as followers of the Prophet. And it ill behoves Christians to criticise them for that attitude.

Another Wikipedian "Islamic Scholar" heard from.

You have to appreciate that in Islam, followers of all other religions are inferior beings who don't have the same rights as followers of the Prophet. And it ill behoves Christians to criticise them for that attitude.

Another Wikipedian "Islamic Scholar" heard from.

I'm not clear what point you're making. Are you suggesting that the statement is incoorect?

You have to appreciate that in Islam, followers of all other religions are inferior beings who don't have the same rights as followers of the Prophet. And it ill behoves Christians to criticise them for that attitude.

Another Wikipedian "Islamic Scholar" heard from.

I'm not clear what point you're making. Are you suggesting that the statement is incoorect?

I'm saying it's bigoted. I await the usual Wikipedian factoids with no context and no credibility and everything that comes from the Web 2.0 Cult of the Amateur to follow. Credible real world scholars do not take make such sweeping characterizations of a major world religion. A likely response will now be to cite more bigoted outliers or out of context material from otherwise mainstream sources.

I'm saying it's bigoted. I await the usual Wikipedian factoids with no context and no credibility and everything that comes from the Web 2.0 Cult of the Amateur to follow. Credible real world scholars do not take make such sweeping characterizations of a major world religion. A likely response will now be to cite more bigoted outliers or out of context material from otherwise mainstream sources.

Mainstream scholars are afraid of their life, and for a very good reason. Who knows? Maybe some Wikipedians know a great deal about Islam but are afraid to say that under their real name because they don't want anything to happen to them or their families.

This post has been edited by cyofee:

I'm saying it's bigoted. I await the usual Wikipedian factoids with no context and no credibility and everything that comes from the Web 2.0 Cult of the Amateur to follow. Credible real world scholars do not take make such sweeping characterizations of a major world religion. A likely response will now be to cite more bigoted outliers or out of context material from otherwise mainstream sources.

Mainstream scholars are afraid of their life, and for a very good reason. Who knows? Maybe some Wikipedians know a great deal about Islam but are afraid to say that under their real name because they don't want anything to happen to them or their families.

The petitioners now number 29,015. They continue to call for understanding, tolerance and respect. Wikipedians, both here and on Wikipedia proper, can only offer up such bigoted and hateful nonsense.

If you want me to, I could write a bot that will get the petition 20k more signatures in 2 days.
But how many people do not agree? And how many muslims?

In other news, some muslim editors on Wikipedia say that it's OK to have these pictures as the pictures aren't the problem as long as you don't worship them, which isn't happening on WP.

If you want me to, I could write a bot that will get the petition 20k more signatures in 2 days.
But how many people do not agree? And how many muslims?

In other news, some muslim editors on Wikipedia say that it's OK to have these pictures as the pictures aren't the problem as long as you don't worship them, which isn't happening on WP.

Do it. Let's see you get any petition with 20,000 signature on that site, bot or not. Any issue relating to Wikipedia. I double darn dare you.

You've made racist comments in this thread (now in the tar pit because they are so vile) you ought to apologize for. You don't speak for Muslims. Neither do I. Certainly no Wikipedians speak for them. Read the petition. They don't speak for all Muslim but they certainly represent an important strain. It is over-whelmingly signed by Muslims. It is signed by people from all over world, including many Islamic nations.

Do it. Let's see you get any petition with 20,000 signature on that site, bot or not. Any issue relating to Wikipedia. I double darn dare you.

Touché. You've caught me on this one, but my point still stands firm: It's entirely possible that one person or a very small group make up the vast majority of a petition's signatures.

You've made racist comments in this thread (now in the tar pit because they are so vile) you ought to apologize for. You don't speak for Muslims. Neither do I. Certainly no Wikipedians speak for them. Read the petition. They don't speak for all Muslim but they certainly represent an important strain. It is over-whelmingly signed by Muslims. It is signed by people from all over world, including many Islamic nations.

I know that it's bad form to respond to ad hominem arguments in a debate, but still...

You say Wikipedians don't speak for Muslims. Why? Not every Wikipedian is a white agnostic American male teenager. By the laws of probability and by factual examples we know that there are Muslim Wikipedians. There are Wikipedians from other countries and other continents (me being one of them). Muslim Wikipedians that actually take the effort to argue their positions against the blind rage (though that isn't a part of Muslim culture) say that it's OK to keep the pictures. As for the non-Muslims signing the petition, it's evidence of two things: their (very real) fear of violence and their musinderstanding of Islam, popularized by Muslim extremists. I never claimed that me, you, or anyone but the Muslims themselves speaks for them.

Do it. Let's see you get any petition with 20,000 signature on that site, bot or not. Any issue relating to Wikipedia. I double darn dare you.

Touché. You've caught me on this one, but my point still stands firm: It's entirely possible that one person or a very small group make up the vast majority of a petition's signatures.

You've made racist comments in this thread (now in the tar pit because they are so vile) you ought to apologize for. You don't speak for Muslims. Neither do I. Certainly no Wikipedians speak for them. Read the petition. They don't speak for all Muslim but they certainly represent an important strain. It is over-whelmingly signed by Muslims. It is signed by people from all over world, including many Islamic nations.

I know that it's bad form to respond to ad hominem arguments in a debate, but still...

You say Wikipedians don't speak for Muslims. Why? Not every Wikipedian is a white agnostic American male teenager. By the laws of probability and by factual examples we know that there are Muslim Wikipedians. There are Wikipedians from other countries and other continents (me being one of them). Muslim Wikipedians that actually take the effort to argue their positions against the blind rage (though that isn't a part of Muslim culture) say that it's OK to keep the pictures. As for the non-Muslims signing the petition, it's evidence of two things: their (very real) fear of violence and their musinderstanding of Islam, popularized by Muslim extremists. I never claimed that me, you, or anyone but the Muslims themselves speaks for them.

Blind rage? The petitioners never called anyone stupid or violent. They has not used the petition as excuse for expressing every ill formed pet theory they might have about non-Muslims. They never even called anyone intolerant or bigoted, although they would be justified if they did. No Wikipedian, as such, has a stable or credible identity as anything. This debate should properly take place between WMF and the petitioners. But because WMF is arrogant and socially irresponsible there is no means for such a discussion to occur.

Here's an issue, though: both the images in the article are pictures of art by Muslims, as far as I can tell. It's not as if some random Wikipedian drew up his own cartoon and uploaded it. So, should Wikipedia choose to support the branch of Islam that forbids the depictions, over the ones that created the art to begin with?

I can see definite proof that the petition is being spammed when I glanced it over, too. Compare this comment:

# 29,114:
Jan 7, 2008, Saleh Mahran , Egypt
Please remove it this picture for the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), no body has the right to drow any picture for him.

and this one:

# 29,106:
Jan 7, 2008, Anonymous , New York
Please remove it this picture for the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), no body has the right to drow any picture for him.

They didn't even seem to care about hiding the cut-and-paste, and the change in location tells you that it isn't an accidental double-post, either.

Here's an issue, though: both the images in the article are pictures of art by Muslims, as far as I can tell. It's not as if some random Wikipedian drew up his own cartoon and uploaded it. So, should Wikipedia choose to support the branch of Islam that forbids the depictions, over the ones that created the art to begin with?

I can see definite proof that the petition is being spammed when I glanced it over, too. Compare this comment:

# 29,114:
Jan 7, 2008, Saleh Mahran , Egypt
Please remove it this picture for the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), no body has the right to drow any picture for him.

and this one:

# 29,106:
Jan 7, 2008, Anonymous , New York
Please remove it this picture for the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), no body has the right to drow any picture for him.

They didn't even seem to care about hiding the cut-and-paste, and the change in location tells you that it isn't an accidental double-post, either.

I'm going to explain this "from the get go" one more time. I don't claim any special knowledge of Islam. I have worked for a civil rights organization, have lived in the largest Arab community in the United States and I'm active in a antiwar group with significant Muslim participation. But you don't know me and none of it matters in any event. I'm not offering my view of what Muslims believe. This is a question of tolerance, not understanding of Islam. That is why I am so impatient with the sundry "theories" of Islam than have been expressed.

Now a huge number of petitioners have made a dignified and reasonable request that Wikipedia remove offensive images. Their sensitivity is based on established religious and cultural traditions. They doubtlessly don't represent all Muslims. They never said they did. This significant group has currently no means of interacting with WP other than through "community" process. These are not their processes and they are met with arrogant and closed reasoning that believes their being offended is not something that matters.

They should not have to interact with this hostile and insensitive "community" at all. A more reasonable approach is that they are recognized as significant stakeholders in the content of the project. They should be able negotiate, as outside equals, with WMF and request that as a publisher of an encyclopedia they exercise editorial restraint in a manner that would avoid offense. But WMF abdicates this responsibility. This irresponsibility is an outcome of the broader irresponsibility of seeking Sec. 230 immunity. They believe they must not be held responsible for content. This means they are incapable of normal editorial restraint.

As to the cut and pasting, I'm sure it is what it appears to be. I've based much of my argument upon the high moral tone of the petitioners. I am aware that with 30,000 signers, almost anything is possible. My fear has been that you would find some atypical hateful rant in the comments. If this single cut and paste job is the extent of what you can find I am well pleased.

The thing is, their being offended isn't a big problem. To write something truly informative, you can't have the mindset of "oh, this offends someone, we have to get rid of it". I'd wager that Piss Christ offends many, many more people than a non-derogatory picture of Muhammad. Yet Wikipedia can, should, and does include the former. Why are offended Muslims afforded special priveleges?

The thing is, their being offended isn't a big problem. To write something truly informative, you can't have the mindset of "oh, this offends someone, we have to get rid of it". I'd wager that Piss Christ offends many, many more people than a non-derogatory picture of Muhammad. Yet Wikipedia can, should, and does include the former. Why are offended Muslims afforded special priveleges?

I don't think Wikipedian's deserve some encyclopedic privilege to offend. But that is not the point. It is something Wikipedians chant like a mantra. The point is a very significant group outside the WP "community" is requesting editorial restraint. Because WP is inherently socially irresponsible they have no avenue of redress.

I agree with the general principle that there exists no effective avenue for outside complaints. The Foundation only likes to deal with things that could get them in legal trouble, and OTRS is insufficient in too many ways to enumerate right now. I just disagree that these particular people, making this particular complaint, should be listened to. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

They didn't even seem to care about hiding the cut-and-paste, and the change in location tells you that it isn't an accidental double-post, either.

That's coz there are Arabs who cannot express their idea in English , so they do copy and paste.

There are now 33951 signatures by now waiting for some respect from "the free encyclopedia".

They didn't even seem to care about hiding the cut-and-paste, and the change in location tells you that it isn't an accidental double-post, either.

That's coz there are Arabs who cannot express their idea in English , so they do copy and paste.

There are now 33951 signatures by now waiting for some respect from "the free encyclopedia".

Stop framing it as "one side wants to respect Islam, one side doesn't". Neither side particularly wants to disrespect anyone or anything. It's just that some people believe that Muslims disliking the pictures is not a sufficient reason to remove them.

Stop framing it as "one side wants to respect Islam, one side doesn't". Neither side particularly wants to disrespect anyone or anything. It's just that some people believe that Muslims disliking the pictures is not a sufficient reason to remove them.

But that's always the way to prevail in Internet arguments... to frame the issue in a way that makes your side seem like the only humane alternative, and makes your opponents look downright evil... then insist that any alternative framing of the issue is just perpetuating and extending the evil. If you can get a big and powerful enough clique to back you on it, you'll be able to steamroller your way over all opposition.

Stop framing it as "one side wants to respect Islam, one side doesn't". Neither side particularly wants to disrespect anyone or anything. It's just that some people believe that Muslims disliking the pictures is not a sufficient reason to remove them.

But that's always the way to prevail in Internet arguments... to frame the issue in a way that makes your side seem like the only humane alternative, and makes your opponents look downright evil... then insist that any alternative framing of the issue is just perpetuating and extending the evil. If you can get a big and powerful enough clique to back you on it, you'll be able to steamroller your way over all opposition.

Is gathering thousands of signatures the same as "getting a big and powerful clique to back you"? I'm not sure it is.

Is asking for respect en masse the same as "framing an issue to make your opponent look downright evil?" It doesn't appear that way to my eyes.

Was this guy (below) trying to "steamroller the opposition" when he marched with the millions? Isn't the act of signing up with likeminded others to call for change a perfectly legitimate activity?

(IMG:http://web.hec.ca/leadergraphies/images/leadergraphie/Gandhi_Web/image001.jpg)

They didn't even seem to care about hiding the cut-and-paste, and the change in location tells you that it isn't an accidental double-post, either.

That's coz there are Arabs who cannot express their idea in English , so they do copy and paste.

There are now 33951 signatures by now waiting for some respect from "the free encyclopedia".

If they can't speak English, what are they doing on the English Wikipedia? Supposing they speak Arabic, they're in luck - not only is the Arabic Wikipedia Muhammad-free, but they can actually read it.

The desire for honor, dignity, and respect is a core value of many individuals and many cultures. This desire is sufficient to motivate a response from individuals and factions who are being treated shabbily or dishonorably, or contemptuously.

The desire for dominance and control is a core value of some individuals and cultures. This desire is sufficient to motivate a response from individuals and factions whose exercise of power and control is being threatened, weakened, undermined, or criticized.

The resulting drama between these two factions is ubiquitous in political history, dating back to the dawn of civilization. Even the Cain and Abel Story had this dramatic structure. So did the Moses and Ramsses Story. Fast forward to modern times and it's the same story today, both in the geopolitical headlines and in popular culture stories such as Harry Potter.

If you want to participate in a drama of tragic and bloody proportion, choose sides in a drama that pits Fear of Humiliation against Fear of Annihilation. It's a guaranteed tragedy of grievous proportions.

Don't you understand the way Wikipedia works? These people are all colluding offsite so are illegal meatpuppets. They all deserve to be blocked and ignored. And don't say that things are different in real life.

Wikipedia politics works just like meatspace politics. There are political conflicts which occasionally erupt into bloody warfare. And in the end, nobody learns much of anything.

In real life, while there is an offence of conspiracy (certainly in English law), few civilised countries have the death penalty just for agreeing with other people.

Indeed. The age of Crusades, Genocides, and Ethnic Cleansing are now well behind us.

Meanwhile, today on NPR's This American Life, host Ira Glass has a story about the statue of Muhammed (holding a Koran and a sword) that is in the US Supreme Court Chamber. Muslims had asked that the statue be removed, but their request was turned down by the government.

Meanwhile, today on NPR's This American Life, host Ira Glass has a story about the statue of Muhammed (holding a Koran and a sword) that is in the US Supreme Court Chamber. Muslims had asked that the statue be removed, but their request was turned down by the government.

That's not really an accurate rendition. I certainly hope that this is not how Ira Glass presented the story on NPR. The SCOTUS did, in fact, 'yield' to islamic concerns, but they didn't tear down the frieze, either. The SCOTUS did what any good lawyer would do in a sticky situation. They messed with the words. i.e., they simply said, "this is not a depiction of Mohammed", but stressed that it was a symbol intended to honor Mohammed's contribution to legal history. Which is a concession, and very much so.

See here, how the frieze of Mohammed on the North-South wall of the SCOTUS building has been duly described in the official documentation:

Muhammad (c. 570 - 632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.

So in short, the Supreme Court 'yielded' (if you want to call it that) to islamic concerns about the issue, out of respect for religious view which differed from every sitting SCOTUS member.

But Wikipedians, in their infinite wisdom, (evidently) see themselves as above the SCOTUS, and won't 'stoop' to yielding to the concerns regarding others' religious sensibilities. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

If they can't speak English, what are they doing on the English Wikipedia? Supposing they speak Arabic, they're in luck - not only is the Arabic Wikipedia Muhammad-free, but they can actually read it.

Uh, Pro. Many people can speak a certain level of English, but aren't so snappy at writing it. As for their right to post there, or anywhere.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Indeed. The age of Crusades, Genocides, and Ethnic Cleansing are now well behind us.

Uh. Really? You mean the Bosnian genocide (which was the impetus-event for the creation of the term 'ethnic cleansing') didn't really happen ten years ago? Within driving distance of much of Italy? In full view of the european neighbors, who were well apprised of ongoing events? And let's not forget the Kosovar Albanian genocide of the late 1990s, which led to U.S. unilateral intervention in Kosovo. Both the above leading to the 'crimes against humanity' case against Slobodan Milosevich? And what about Rwanda's genocidal slaughter of Tutsis-Hutus in the early 1990s? (again, this being the impetus for another special crimes-against-humanity court creation in Rwanda).
(IMG:http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1630000/images/_1634478_prisonersitn300.jpg)
When only six years ago, "Five Bosnian Serbs have been sentenced to between five and 25 years' imprisonment for their part in running the notorious Omarska detention camp in northern Bosnia".I don't see how genocide has been relegated to the past whatsoever.

As for the Crusades - 'certain people' are of the opinion that the blind eye turned towards the Kosovar-Albanian slaughter and the Bosnian concentration camps (and mass slaughter of males and rape-camps intended to impregnate Bosnian muslim women (ref: BBC case on trial) with non-muslim seed, and humiliate them in the process) --- was all to do with the old-story historical bias of europe, which dates back to the day that the Turks were an hour outside of Vienna.

BBC: Monday, 20 March, 2000, 13:15 GMT - Bosnian rape camp trial opens
(IMG:http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/680000/images/_683846_kovac300.jpg) (IMG:http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/680000/images/_683846_rape150.jpg)
Three Bosnian Serbs commanders accused of forcing Muslim women into sexual slavery have gone on trial at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. Radomir Kovac, Dragoljub Kunarac and Zoran Vukovic are accused of detaining Bosnian Muslim women in a school, a sports hall and other locations in Foca in southeast Bosnia.Soldiers and paramilitaries sexually assaulted the women nightly. The trial opened on Monday with a prosecutor linking the organised sexual assault to the Serb leadership's ethnic cleansing campaign in the 1992-95 war. "What happened to the Muslim women of Foca occurred because of their ethnicity and religion and also because they were women," prosecutor Dirk Ryneveld said. Some of the victims were as young as 12.

So I don't see how the Crusades (or the Turkish incursions, not to mention the 1974 Turkish incursion into Cyprus, which is still very much of a political hot-spot) or muslim encroachment on Christian territories (or the modern day controversy about immigration in Europe by muslims) is in the past whatsoever. And let's face it - many muslims take the fact that no one did anything in Bosnia quite personally.

It isn't present in the commonplace collective American psyche, but that doesn't make it cogent and relevant. Just because we Americans are more worried about Britney Spear's latest foible than genocide, or such unplesantries, doesn't mean they don't exist.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Genocide is in the past? Hmroo?

(IMG:http://www.darfurgenocide.org/images/header.jpg)

DARFUR: A Genocide We Can Stop - Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been raped and murdered in Darfur since 2002. Your voice can help end this genocide. Using a webcam, camcorder, digital camera, or cell phone, you can easily record a personal appeal and upload it to our website. All videos will be displayed on our site and sent directly to your political representatives

Stop framing it as "one side wants to respect Islam, one side doesn't". Neither side particularly wants to disrespect anyone or anything.

From the muslim point of view, the presentation of the image - but even moreso, the response to their concerns, is a huge disrespect and affront. The fact is that the people who 'want it up' choose to ignore the concerns of the muslims peacefully request a take-down. To them, it is a discussion point. To the muslims asking for the take-down, it is far more than that.

It's just that some people believe that Muslims disliking the pictures is not a sufficient reason to remove them.

This is the root of the misunderstanding. To muslims, this isn't a like/dislike issue. It is as much of an affront as if someone spit on your grandmother's face. You wouldn't like that either, and in fact, it might cause you to react.


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

What?!? You mean I'm mistaken?!?

Do you mean to tell me (and this committee) that we have not yet moved, as an enlightned civilization, beyond acts of political annihilation of rival editors ...er fellow human beings?

What the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) really said:

In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that the Supreme Court remove the image of Muhammad from the frieze. While appreciating the fact that Muhammad was included in the court's pantheon of 18 prominent lawgivers of history, CAIR noted that Islam discouraged its followers from portraying any prophet in paintings, sculptures or other artistic representations. CAIR also objected that the prophet was shown with a sword, "reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors."

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist rejected the request to sandblast Muhammad, saying the artwork "was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship."

“Altering the depiction of Muhammad would impair the artistic integrity of the whole," Rehnquist wrote. "Additionally, it is unlawful (under the U. S. Code) to remove or in any way injure an architectural feature in the Supreme Court."

The court later added a footnote to the visitors’ pamphlet describing the frieze, calling it a "well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad."(link)

That's why muslims accepted the ruling. It was re-framed as an attempt to honor Mohammed (the intention of the frieze) and termed as not a real depiction of the prophet.

That's all it took, and it was acceptable.

What?!? You mean I'm mistaken?!?

Do you mean to tell me (and this committee) that we have not yet moved, as an enlightned civilization, beyond acts of political annihilation of rival editors ...er fellow human beings?

?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Are you perplexed?

Are you perplexed?

Anyone that thought that Moulton was being serious when he said the "age of Crusades, Genocides, and Ethnic Cleansing are now well behind us" needs a good kick up the bum.

Don't be silly.

I think the SCOTUS incident is on point and completely relevant. It does illustrate the arrogance of Wikipedian in relation to the world's most famous eight men and one woman in black dresses.

Meanwhile the petition is up to 38,945 signatures. Their request is simple and well within the ability of WP to accommodate without any harm to even the Wikipedian's pretentious vision of the "encyclopedic project." It is this simplicity of motive and the possibility of resolving the matter that is so poignant. I really loath to see The Crusades, Bosnian ethic cleansing and Darfur's genocide brought into the discussion, even if done, as by DL, as a noble effort to defend people who are treated with unfair disdain and prejudice by the majority people in the West, on WP, and sometimes it seem, even WR. Bringing in these violent, ancient or intractable disputes only causes a sense of hopelessness to something that could be successfully resolved by WMF taking responsibility for providing a meaningful form of redress, other than community processes, to people and groups harmed by WP.

I also think Moulton was being ironic.

Don't be silly.

OK, a little stubbing of toes then.

Let's not stub our silly toes tripping over the root of the problem.

Are you perplexed?

Completely lost in the wilderness! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

It's a great adventure, eh?

The petition now exceeds 40,000 signatures.

The images say "This is what Muhammad actually looked like"

Every article implies it, and this is what makes Muslims angry. The text should not describe the image this way. All artwork should be cited properly: as artwork.

Something like:

Osman [1595]. Siyer-ı Nebi (The Life of the Prophet). Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul: Ottoman Miniature illus. Muhammad at Mount Hira, Hazine 1221, folio 223b

The way the images are included now the writers might as well have illustrated the article with pictures of Muhammad themselves. The artwork is only included for color's sake, even the "ancient illustration" context is simply tossed aside in favor of more gratuitous depictions of Muhammad.

The way the images are included now the writers might as well have illustrated the article with pictures of Muhammad themselves. The artwork is only included for color's sake, even the "ancient illustration" context is simply tossed aside in favor of more gratuitous depictions of Muhammad.

These are among the very most notable and historical images of Muhammad available. One is the earliest known image of the subject of the article. They were selected with a gravity of purpose appropriate to a serious academic enterprise. All were created by Muslims, some famous in their own right. They were provided by scholarly institutions of the highest caliber, such as the University of Edinburgh and the French National Library. All were already made available on the internet by these same institutions.

The images say "This is what Muhammad actually looked like"

It doesn't need to say that to make them upset. It only needs to be a depiction of him. This is why the Supreme Court decision was reasonably satisfying. It said that it was an image, not of Mohammed, which is intended to honor his contribution to legal thought. That was ok.

These are among the very most notable and historical images of Muhammad available. One is the earliest known image of the subject of the article. They were selected with a gravity of purpose appropriate to a serious academic enterprise. All were created by Muslims, some famous in their own right. They were provided by scholarly institutions of the highest caliber, such as the University of Edinburgh and the French National Library. All were already made available on the internet by these same institutions.

I think you need to have this debate on the talk page of that article, or with some muslims, in person.

One is the earliest known image of the subject of the article

No, it is the earliest known drawing of the subject of the article.

One is the earliest known image of the subject of the article

No, it is the earliest known drawing of the subject of the article.

Yes. The earliest known photograph of Mohammad was taken in 1896 at the sea-front at Coney Island.

I'm being serious here, Kato. Maybe you can joke around later, you're interrupting the conversation. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I'd rather see the Supreme Court honor James Gilligan's contribution to legal thought.

Yes. The earliest known photograph of Mohammad was taken in 1896 at the sea-front at Coney Island.

nudes?

One is the earliest known image of the subject of the article

No, it is the earliest known drawing of the subject of the article.

There's an earlier image which isn't a drawing?

There's an earlier image which isn't a drawing?

Are you asking a rhetorical question?

This post has been edited by Ben:

Oh, wait, I get it, you're objecting to my choice of words based upon the following:

The images say "This is what Muhammad actually looked like" Every article implies it, and this is what makes Muslims angry.

The only ones saying that are the people determined to take offense, and using it as a talking point for why they shouldn't be presented. No one else would assume this, given the dates of his life vs. those in the images. It might be reasonably expected that they're consistent with what is known of his appearance (from hadith)…as the "unveiled" ones are, perhaps because the illustrators were familiar with the very same descriptions. (not that this would be required.) The ones that contradict hadith are those showing him with his face blanked out or veiled, or worse yet, aflame. Yet, oddly, these are the ones which are said to be less offensive.

Over at Bahá'u'lláh, there's an actual photograph, but that doesn't stop Bahá'ís from complaining. The issue isn't accuracy, but "indecent" exposure of the sacred, as if it were images of ordinary human beings.

Which they are, actually.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

I don't think any 'cult of the amateur" opinions about Islam or Islamic art are relevant here one way or the other. Again, the point is WP has provided no meaningful means of redress for this concern expressed by these 40,000 plus petitioners.

WP doesn't not provide a functional process for an aggrieved party to petition for redress of grievance.

Neither did the Spanish Inquisition.

"This is the earliest known image of Thor, the thunder god"

Acceptable?

I don't think any 'cult of the amateur" opinions about Islam or Islamic art are relevant here one way or the other. Again, the point is WP has provided no meaningful means of redress for this concern expressed by these 40,000 plus petitioners.

Exactly.

This is a debating topic, of a joking video game sort to most of the Wikipedias (even WR-ians) and internet debating society members. To the persons aggrieved, it is something pretty serious and personal.

The debating society can mock and laugh, but it has to be recalled that muslims hold the strings on our oil and gas.

Evidence the shocking rise in gas prices, post Iraq war, and our President's hopeful visit last week to encourage increases in supply flow.

Good relations translates not only to nicer political neighbors, but sometimes a less thin wallet.

But never mind opinions you don't like.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

The Klingon Ethic (Death Before Dishonor) is not entirely unheard of in modern times.

Neither did the Spanish Inquisition.

Cue 15 year Wikipedian scholar to elocute for 6 paragraphs about the various procedures for redressing grievance available to participants in the Spanish Inquisition, include 4 illustrations of the actual grievance procedures.

I prefer the Mel Brooks song and dance number celebrating the joys of the Inquisition.

I prefer the Mel Brooks song and dance number celebrating the joys of the Inquisition.

Indeed. That was the best part of the movie. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

The Klingon Ethic (Death Before Dishonor) is not entirely unheard of in modern times.

That's Samuri originally.



Also...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_is_a_...est_served_cold

The first written appearance of the proverb "revenge is a dish best served cold" is often credited to the 18th century novel Les liaisons dangereuses, but since it doesn't actually appear in the original text, the validity of this attribution is unclear. The english version of this phrase in that exact wording, and arguably the most famous account of this, can be attributed to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. However the phrase appeared in the 1949 film Kind Hearts and Coronets as "revenge is a dish which people of taste prefer to eat cold".[2].

I don't think any 'cult of the amateur" opinions about Islam or Islamic art are relevant here one way or the other. Again, the point is WP has provided no meaningful means of redress for this concern expressed by these 40,000 plus petitioners.

Exactly.

This is a debating topic, of a joking video game sort to most of the Wikipedias (even WR-ians) and internet debating society members. To the persons aggrieved, it is something pretty serious and personal.

The debating society can mock and laugh, but it has to be recalled that muslims hold the strings on our oil and gas.

Evidence the shocking rise in gas prices, post Iraq war, and our President's hopeful visit last week to encourage increases in supply flow.

Good relations translates not only to nicer political neighbors, but sometimes a less thin wallet.

But never mind opinions you don't like.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I don't think of it as a game. It's a very serious editorial decision, and deserves to be treated like one.

The appeals to world events are pretty irrelevant at this point. Even if the issue were in play at that level, it wouldn't follow that acquiescence would be the right answer.

Possibly the answer lies in their minds, and not ours.

The way the images are included now the writers might as well have illustrated the article with pictures of Muhammad themselves. The artwork is only included for color's sake, even the "ancient illustration" context is simply tossed aside in favor of more gratuitous depictions of Muhammad.

These are among the very most notable and historical images of Muhammad available. One is the earliest known image of the subject of the article. They were selected with a gravity of purpose appropriate to a serious academic enterprise. All were created by Muslims, some famous in their own right. They were provided by scholarly institutions of the highest caliber, such as the University of Edinburgh and the French National Library. All were already made available on the internet by these same institutions.

Utter nonsense. Cite each of those things. Mention it in the article. Place these images in historical context. None of that has been done. They aren't pretty colours for you to play with.

Possibly the answer lies in their minds, and not ours.

I'm really beginning to doubt that.

Utter nonsense. Cite each of those things. Mention it in the article. Place these images in historical context.

The sources are on the image pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

and are also cited in the "references" section of the article (#18 and #42 respectively.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Notes.

I don't think of it as a game. It's a very serious editorial decision, and deserves to be treated like one.

I don't think you are doing it on purpose, or spitefully. But the dynamic is very game-like. Or seems so to me.

The appeals to world events are pretty irrelevant at this point.

<Spits out coffee> Oh really?

Proabivouac, with your vast education, I'm surprised you'd say this.

Wikipedia-en is a worldwide publication, which provides what would (sadly) pass for the opinions of mostly north american anglophones (heavily peppered with Europeans and UK). Do you really think that it has no weight or meaning in politics, social perceptions and hence world events? Come on.

Even if the issue were in play at that level, it wouldn't follow that acquiescence would be the right answer.

This is part of the problem. Giving (to) some people some-thing that matters much to them, (from) a group of people who don't have any real stake in the 'get', is not acquiescence, it is **negotiation**.

aka. pick your battles.

My take is that most people arguing hard for a keep are treating this like a debating society case, where freedom of speech is the main issue. It isn't the main issue at all. I like very much how the Supreme Court handled the same issue. Respecting free speech while respecting the strong sentiments of the aggrieved. It worked. I simply don't see that on this issue, sadly.

Possibly the answer lies in their minds, and not ours.

Most thoughts and feelings, of every person, originate from the mind.

The problem is with the 'keeps' is that they refuse to see that the mindset of the 40,000 signatories have credence.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

The first written appearance of the proverb "revenge is a dish best served cold" is often credited to the 18th century novel Les liaisons dangereuses, but since it doesn't actually appear in the original text, the validity of this attribution is unclear. The english version of this phrase in that exact wording, and arguably the most famous account of this, can be attributed to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. However the phrase appeared in the 1949 film Kind Hearts and Coronets as "revenge is a dish which people of taste prefer to eat cold".

Another proverb is "He who goes on a journey of revenge had best dig two graves."

The segue from graves to graven images dates back to the Second Commandment of Moses. Nowadays, few people think twice about making graven images of anything and everything.

I imagine there is also a connection to Narcissus and Echo here, as well.

Narcissus notwithstanding, a lot of people are horrified at what they see when they look in a mirror.

And even more people are horrified when they first see themselves caricatured in a fun-house mirror masquerading as a WP BLP.

Utter nonsense. Cite each of those things. Mention it in the article. Place these images in historical context.

The sources are on the image pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

and are also cited in the "references" section of the article (#18 and #42 respectively.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Notes.

Nowhere in your links does it state why they're important/mainstream enough to be shown. Which is what I asked you to cite. The whole point is that people of a certain sort simply want to piss other people - of a religion or race you don't like - off, and that's why they push for things that are otherwise ruled out by WP:UNDUE.

Utter nonsense. Cite each of those things. Mention it in the article. Place these images in historical context.

The sources are on the image pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

and are also cited in the "references" section of the article (#18 and #42 respectively.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Notes.

Nowhere in your links does it state why they're important/mainstream enough to be shown. Which is what I asked you to cite. The whole point is that people of a certain sort simply want to piss other people - of a religion or race you don't like - off, and that's why they push for things that are otherwise ruled out by WP:UNDUE.

That's the first time I've heard that an article should explain in the article itself why what is presented has been presented. Usually this is on the talk page.

As for undue weight, please remember that this is a biography of Muhammad the actual man, not an article about how Muslims represent and venerate Muhammad. Images of biographical subjects don't suggest that the images are part of any cultural movement, modern or otherwise: they are only depictions of the subject.

Most images of biographical subjects have no cult or fame at all, in most cases, the reader will never have seen them before, which is good: if readers only see what they already know, they've learned nothing.

Reductio ad absurdum is a simple matter in this instance: if only one image survives of a biographical subject, and most people haven't seen it or heard of it, we can't include it in the article: because the norm is for no image to be made or seen, its inclusion violates undue weight.

The logical fallacy is to count depictions never created as being "represented" by the absence of depictions which were. We may as well shorten the article's text to represent the majority of the world's population who never think about or discuss Muhammad at all. More rationally, an image which, for whatever reason, was never created, is aptly and sufficiently "represented" by its own failure to appear.

I'm so tired of all these essentially random arguments…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
http://cache.boston.com/images/bostondirtd...d_Chewbacca.jpg

The only honest argument is that forwarded by Glass bead game and Disilliusioned lackey: the display of the images upsets many Muslims for reasons the rest of us don't relate to and can't truly understand, and we should avoid this because it's only right/they have lots of oil/they might get violent etc. Muslims don't like it, and that's all we need to know. Appeals to novel interpetations of Wikipedia policy as the deus ex machina which will come and elegantly solve the apparent contradiction between the pursuit of disinterested neutrality and public relations concerns are wastes of everybody's time.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Wikipedia is not in business to not upset people.

Wikipedia Review is in business because of the above non-policy.

The only honest argument is that forwarded by Glass bead game and Disilliusioned lackey: the display of the images upsets many Muslims for reasons the rest of us don't relate to and can't truly understand, and we should avoid this because it's only right/they have lots of oil/they might get violent etc. Muslims don't like it, and that's all we need to know. Appeals to novel interpetations of Wikipedia policy as the deus ex machina which will come and elegantly solve the apparent contradiction between the pursuit of disinterested neutrality and public relations concerns are wastes of everybody's time.

"Might get violent" and "have a lot of oil" is bigoted rubbish and has no part of my argument.

The only honest argument is that forwarded by Glass bead game and Disilliusioned lackey: the display of the images upsets many Muslims for reasons the rest of us don't relate to and can't truly understand, and we should avoid this because it's only right/they have lots of oil/they might get violent etc. Muslims don't like it, and that's all we need to know. Appeals to novel interpetations of Wikipedia policy as the deus ex machina which will come and elegantly solve the apparent contradiction between the pursuit of disinterested neutrality and public relations concerns are wastes of everybody's time.

"Might get violent" and "have a lot of oil" is bigoted rubbish and has no part of my argument.

Same here.

My notation of the fact that oil is being used for payback for a variety of political dissatisfaction (notably the Iraq war, the proverbial "straw the broke the camel's back") has nothing to do with the argument to take those pics down. My point was that there is no reason to keep something up that is vehemently repulsive to the religious sensibilities one large group, when the non-members of that group have no true stake in retention, save for power games, etc. The fact that deleterious consequences could arise as an outcome is beside the point. True, but beside the point.

Your focus on "we don't have to cave in to what X group thinks, we won't be bullied by oil, we aren't afraid of violence, etc" is childish grasping as straws (see above [WR:CAMEL]) only buttresses my point that this discussion is, for you, and others, a game. A debating game. A power game. And a sad waste of time.

With negative spillover effects on goodwill between countries, cultures and religions.

Forwarding misunderstanding and malice.

For no good reason, save for.... the game.

And so typical on Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

The only honest argument is that forwarded by Glass bead game and Disilliusioned lackey: the display of the images upsets many Muslims for reasons the rest of us don't relate to and can't truly understand, and we should avoid this because it's only right/they have lots of oil/they might get violent etc. Muslims don't like it, and that's all we need to know. Appeals to novel interpetations of Wikipedia policy as the deus ex machina which will come and elegantly solve the apparent contradiction between the pursuit of disinterested neutrality and public relations concerns are wastes of everybody's time.

"Might get violent" and "have a lot of oil" is bigoted rubbish and has no part of my argument.

I didn't mean to mischaracterize your argument - DL invoked a 1973-type oil scenario, and the possibility of communal violence comes up again and again on both sides, probably based on the reaction to the Danish cartoons (which, unlike these depictions, were created to be provocative.)

I only meant to highlight that unlike some others, you're not bothering to construct arcane wiki-arguments, when the real point has nothing to do with WP's editorial policies, which make no attempt to address the social-political consequences.

For no good reason, save for.... the game.

And so typical on Wikipedia.

What do you think of the French National Library's display of the same image?

http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm

What do you think of the French National Library's display of the same image?

http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm

I think it has everything to do with France's "issues" with muslim immigration (and immigration in general). Which is why they made it illegal for little muslim girls to wear the hijab in schools (how's that for freedom of expression). You don't want to start bringing France-and-issues-with-islam into the mix, because that's another fork entirely.

On that note, France may have given the world Voltaire, but recall the Voltaire spent most of his life in Switzerland, or on the French Swiss border town which now bears his name (or other nearby regions) because he was "banned" (also known as exiled) from France. He's appreciated in the present day, but back-in-the-day? Not so much. In some ways, the more things change.....(you know the other half).

I don't have a dog in that fight, but I've watched the proverbial "fighting dogs" maul each other in play. More "heat generated" (shivers at using their terminology) than a workaday Wikipedia argument. In short, the French feelings about hijab/scarf, and probably also about the cartoons (recall they were also published in France, shortly after Denmark) have much to do with feelings about immigration and the changing of the national demographic. Which isn't something many people have an easy time with.

Recall that we in the U.S. (and Canada, and Australia) are immigrant countries. For all our struggles with racism (etc) we are made up of newcomers, so eventually, every new wave of immigrants is more-or-less eventually accepted, over time, esp. in the 2nd or 3rd generation (caveats on what is considered "accepted" acknowledged). Not so in Europe. Or not in the same way, would be more accurate to say. A 3rd generation, German born Turk, til a few years ago, per jus sanguinis, was considered a Turk, whereas an American or Czech who could prove German blood many generations back got a passport immediately. Fair? Nope. But that's how it was. It's changed a bit, and France didn't exactly do that, but still, the adjustments aren't as easy in immigrant countries. Such adjustment "teething pains" have more to do with feelings about islam, I think, than the real points being made or yelled about. As it were.

So I'd add to my recommendation to you to speak to a muslim or two about the cartoon issue, to also talk to a French person about the hijab/scarf issue. Per the latter, prepare to not "talk" but to witness a wave of words which will not be interrupted. Strong feelings there, and not entirely lacking in emotion. To say the least.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

What do you think of the French National Library's display of the same image?

http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm

I think it has everything to do with France's "issues" with muslim immigration (and immigration in general). Which is why they made it illegal for girls to wear the hijab in schools. You don't want to start bringing France-and-issues-with-islam into the mix, because that's another fork entirely.

So I'd add to my recommendation to you to speak to a muslim or two about the cartoon issue, to also talk to a French person about the hijab. Per the latter, prepare to not "talk" but to witness a wave of words which will not be interrupted. Strong feelings there, and not entirely lacking in emotion. To say the least.

44,083 are waiting to talk about Wikipedia, a land stranger than France.

44,083 are waiting to talk about Wikipedia, a land stranger than France.

Yes, the Wikipedia "community" is one of those new-fangled "non-state actors" as they call them in politics and law.

As are terrorist groups, like Al Quaida. (or any other group which supra-ceded national borders and was active enough to merit some form of recognition of legal personality).

No association implied of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) But they both would qualify for that terminology. Hence the new branch of legal thought addressing such entities whereas old fashioned national law (and supra-national law, aka international law) don't address such animals at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Newsflash:

It is obvious--to everyone except those who put up the pictures, and to anyone familiar with the high school level discourse surrounding them--that the real reason they are up there is, to put it in these people's terms, to teach the violent barbarian Muslims a lesson about their stupid religion. Turkish Muslims weren't barbarians, and didn't think icongraphy was blasphemous like a bunch of idiots, so they were the "good" Muslims. The other Muslims are the bad ones that blew up the World Trade Center and killed 3000 people, and maybe showing them who the good Muslims are will change their ways.

It is obvious to everyone it is puerile crap. But the picture-lovers won't admit it. Why? It's a psychological issue called cognitive dissonance. They are unwilling to admit to themselves and to others that they *like* offending Muslims and their stupid religion and backwards violent ways. So instead of admitting it, and opening themselves up to being called racists, they'll spin up all sorts of nonsense and unrelated reasons to keep the pictures up.

The thing is there's no good reason. It's decoration, and decorations are not important. Put up an artist's impression of what he looked like and there you have a nice decoration for the article. Now if taking down *a decoration* seems like a big deal, that's because the picture lovers have a lot more invested in displaying them them than any normal, neutral, person. And what is invested is their plan of attack. They want to offend Muslims with these pictures, that's the whole idea of putting them up there in the first place.

It's not that sinister, I don't think. Wikipedia is viewed as the relevant part of the world, and everything else is relevant only so far as it touches Wikipedia. Attempts from outside the relevant world to change Wikipedia are seen as hostile, thus virtually ensuring that the opposite will be done. They certainly have a right to have the images up, but it's really not worth it.

Newsflash:

It is obvious--to everyone except those who put up the pictures, and to anyone familiar with the high school level discourse surrounding them--that the real reason they are up there is, to put it in these people's terms, to teach the violent barbarian Muslims a lesson about their stupid religion. Turkish Muslims weren't barbarians, and didn't think icongraphy was blasphemous like a bunch of idiots, so they were the "good" Muslims. The other Muslims are the bad ones that blew up the World Trade Center and killed 3000 people, and maybe showing them who the good Muslims are will change their ways.

It is obvious to everyone it is puerile crap. But the picture-lovers won't admit it. Why? It's a psychological issue called cognitive dissonance. They are unwilling to admit to themselves and to others that they *like* offending Muslims and their stupid religion and backwards violent ways. So instead of admitting it, and opening themselves up to being called racists, they'll spin up all sorts of nonsense and unrelated reasons to keep the pictures up.

The thing is there's no good reason. It's decoration, and decorations are not important. Put up an artist's impression of what he looked like and there you have a nice decoration for the article. Now if taking down *a decoration* seems like a big deal, that's because the picture lovers have a lot more invested in displaying them them than any normal, neutral, person. And what is invested is their plan of attack. They want to offend Muslims with these pictures, that's the whole idea of putting them up there in the first place.

In your opinion, is that the only reason why non-Muslims have ever displayed these images? Including the French National Library and the University of Edinburgh?

In your opinion, is that the only reason why non-Muslims have ever displayed these images? Including the French National Library and the University of Edinburgh?

By all means go ahead and guess what my opinion is. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

In your opinion, is that the only reason why non-Muslims have ever displayed these images? Including the French National Library and the University of Edinburgh?

By all means go ahead and guess what my opinion is. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

What's missing here is an acknowledgment that the images serve a legitimate scholarly purpose.

If Islam were a thing of the past - if there were no Muslims to complain about the images, or for trolls to upset - if no Wikipedia editors had any opinions of their own about Islam - would they be displayed?

Of course they would be. And the reason they would be is exactly that other motivation that you refuse to see: to inform.

They certainly have a right to have the images up, but it's really not worth it.

That could probably be said for any controversial information, or any controversial article. The history of Talk:Muhammad (and the protection history for the article) is and was a total disgrace even ignoring the images. Even straightfoward (to all but Muslims) and well-sourced observations, such as Muhammad being the historical founder the religion of Islam - a pretty important thing to know (as is the Islamic sacred history in which this isn't the case) give rise to rabid screeds and religious slurs. Just the fact that non-Muslims are cited in and work on the article is controversial. And this is repeated across pretty much every high-profile Islam-related article.

If the goal is to avoid controversy and hurt feelings, then we may as well close shop. Or is there something here which we're actually trying to accomplish?

What's missing here is an acknowledgment that the images serve a legitimate scholarly purpose.

You need me to spell out the fact that a museum piece has a scholarly purpose? Here's an idea: just assume that's something I acknowledge. Assume that I have passed, say, 3rd grade (3rd graders go on field trips to museums right?)

If Islam were a thing of the past - if there were no Muslims to complain about the images, or for trolls to upset - if no Wikipedia editors had any opinions of their own about Islam - would they be displayed?

Of course they would be. And the reason they would be is exactly that other motivation that you refuse to see: to inform.

These same images? Captioned the same way? No. Why not make a real comparison: the Greek Gods. Let's look at the Zeus article and the Muhammad article.

[Illustration of a statue of Zeus]
The Statue of Zeus at Olympia
Phidias created the 40ft (12m) tall statue of Zeus at Olympia about 435 BC. The statue was perhaps the most famous sculpture in Ancient Greece, imagined here in a 16th century engraving

Compared to:

[Illustration of Muhammad from a book]
The earliest surviving image of Muhammad from Rashid al-Din's Jami' al-Tawarikh, approximately 1315, depicting the episode of the Black Stone

(edit) And as for "informing" the information conveyed is trivial. They're not photographs. They are not illustrations done at the time, they are not even realistic. They are artistic impressions. They are illustrations. Yes it is important they appear on the Sebi Nebi page, maybe even important in the icongraphy section in Islam or even Muhammad. But other than that the information is *trivial* and that's what you won't admit. What is the information you want to convey?

This post has been edited by Ben:

Newsflash:

It is obvious--to everyone except those who put up the pictures, and to anyone familiar with the high school level discourse surrounding them--that the real reason they are up there is, to put it in these people's terms, to teach the violent barbarian Muslims a lesson about their stupid religion.

Is that your personal opinion, or is it the opinion of what you think the others think. Because the way you wrote it isn't entirely clear. Discuss.

Turkish Muslims weren't barbarians,

Europeans, would disagree, with valid historical precedent. You know that about 100 or so years ago, the Turks came within 1 hour drive of Vienna, right? You know that Turks invaded Cyprus in 1964, right? You know the island is still half occupied by the Turks, since that date, right? (hence "Turkish Cyprus, and Greek Cyprus"). You know that there exists a state of virtual war at that wall, between Turkey and Greece (ahem, Greek Cyprus, but scratch the surface and it's all about Greek politics). That it is a longstanding and current "Berlin Wall" at the former capital city - to this day, right? Of course you do(!) Or do you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I mean, you and didn't think icongraphy was blasphemous like a bunch of idiots,

Turks have become secular after the model put forth by Ataturk in the early 20th century, and post WW2. Turkish secularism is a recent thing. During their moves into Europe (which was about when they moved into the Former Republic of Yugoslavia-states, and Albania, they were slightly less polite. But even while secular, they still brutally took over other countries. Did I mention Cyprus again? 1964? Rape, pillage, and mass murder of Greek Cypriots, most "disappeaared" still being unaccounted for? (men, mostly). The political situation there is still tense, they have a little "Berlin Wall" cutting the island in two to this day, manned by armed guards. Cyprus is the principal sticking point as to why Turkey isn't in the EU. Not even on the list. Estonia and Slovenia and Lithuania, further away from Brussels, "yes". Turkey? Talk to us at the end of the next century, is the message they get. Europeans are still pissed. So to speak.

so they were the "good" Muslims. The other Muslims are the bad ones that blew up the World Trade Center and killed 3000 people, and maybe showing them who the good Muslims are will change their ways.

I'm sorry, but this is utterly ignorant, beyond all possible repair, Ben. You need a loooooooooooooooong history class. Unless you are trying to caricature the ignorance of others. In which case you are doing a good job.

It is obvious to everyone it is puerile crap.

What? The excuses? Or the complaints? Be more specific.

But the picture-lovers won't admit it. Why? It's a psychological issue called cognitive dissonance. They are unwilling to admit to themselves and to others that they *like* offending Muslims and their stupid religion and backwards violent ways. So instead of admitting it, and opening themselves up to being called racists, they'll spin up all sorts of nonsense and unrelated reasons to keep the pictures up.

Again, that's not cognitive dissonance. That's "hypocrisy".

The thing is there's no good reason. It's decoration, and decorations are not important.

Finally, a comment I can respect.

Put up an artist's impression of what he looked like and there you have a nice decoration for the article. Now if taking down *a decoration* seems like a big deal, that's because the picture lovers have a lot more invested in displaying them them than any normal, neutral, person. And what is invested is their plan of attack. They want to offend Muslims with these pictures, that's the whole idea of putting them up there in the first place.

That's partly true. The other part of it concerns the completely dense people who simply are arguing on the basis of free speech, who have no foggy clue why it would piss muslims off.

If the goal is to avoid controversy and hurt feelings, then we may as well close shop. Or is there something here which we're actually trying to accomplish?

That's ridiculous Proabivouac. The contrapositive stands just as firmly. Are you trying to upset people? Or write an encyclopedia? The Supreme Court presented respect when countered with the same points, and Wikipedia can't seem to do the same.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Is that your personal opinion, or is it the opinion of what you think the others think. Because the way you wrote it isn't entirely clear.

It is my opinion of what people in general would think. It's not important, I was simply emphasizing how obvious I believe it is.

Discuss

This quite an unfortunate "English test" tone you've adopted. I am not your pupil nor, to set the record straight, your teacher.

Europeans, would disagree, with valid historical precedent. You know that about 100 or so years ago, the Turks came within 1 hour drive of Vienna, right? You know that Turks invaded Cyprus in 1964, right? You know the island is still half occupied by the Turks, since that date, right? (hence "Turkish Cyprus, and Greek Cyprus"). You know that there exists a state of virtual war at that wall, between Turkey and Greece (ahem, Greek Cyprus, but scratch the surface and it's all about Greek politics). That it is a longstanding and current "Berlin Wall" at the former capital city - to this day, right? Of course you do(!) Or do you? unsure.gif

Of course some would say Turkish Muslims were barbarians within a different context; an entirely irrelevant context, I might add. The context I was in was the context of blasphemous icongraphy, not Cyprus. Was someone talking about Cyprus before? I must have missed it.

Turks have become secular after the model put forth by Ataturk in the early 20th century, and post WW2. Turkish secularism is a recent thing. During their moves into Europe (which was about when they moved into the Former Republic of Yugoslavia-states, and Albania, they were slightly less polite. But even while secular, they still brutally took over other countries. Did I mention Cyprus again? 1964? Rape, pillage, and mass murder of Greek Cypriots, most "disappeaared" still being unaccounted for? (men, mostly). The political situation there is still tense, they have a little "Berlin Wall" cutting the island in two to this day, manned by armed guards. Cyprus is the principal sticking point as to why Turkey isn't in the EU. Not even on the list. Estonia and Slovenia and Lithuania, further away from Brussels, "yes". Turkey? Talk to us at the end of the next century, is the message they get. Europeans are still pissed. So to speak.

This is all very interesting, but my mention of the Ottoman Empire's views on icongraphy of Muhammad has no relation to Turkey's current political secularism. I was relating it to the illustrations of Muhammad, the subject of the thread.

I'm sorry, but this is utterly ignorant, beyond all possible repair, Ben. You need a loooooooooooooooong history class. Unless you are trying to caricature the ignorance of others. In which case you are doing a good job.

Yes, I am in fact trying to caricature the ignorance of others.

What? The excuses? Or the complaints? Be more specific.

My characterization is not that important. Let's say the attitudes and arguments of the editors who wish the pictures to stay in their current state.

Again, that's not cognitive dissonance. That's "hypocrisy".

I'd agree it's hypocrisy, but I also did actually mean the psychological term "cognitive dissonance." If you disagree, so be it. It too is unimportant, more important is the clarifying sentence following it.

Finally, a comment I can respect.

Well that's my main point so that's good. Respect is one thing--do you agree with it?

That's partly true. The other part of it concerns the completely dense people who simply are arguing on the basis of free speech, who have no foggy clue why it would piss muslims off.

See, I don't think people are that dense. I'm sure some are, but maybe not the ones you are thinking of, and that's pretty much what I was getting at before. I think the free speech issue is just them covering-up their underlying desire to offend Muslims. It's a rationalization for their primary goal. See, if their primary goal was free speech I think the discourse would go a lot differently. There wouldn't be so many pictures up, someone arguing on the basis of free speech would still show concern and discussion over an offensive *presentation* of the images, even if they're not willing to remove them (such as the statue of Muhammad). The fact that it goes the way it does--with people putting up lots of images, instead of nice functional illustrations, arguing the works of Nakkas Osman are somehow extremely important to feature on the Muhammad page--makes me think a lot of them really want to offend Muslims, and that's their primary goal as an editor of the article. It's not "Protect free speech" it's "Offend Muslims to teach them a lesson about how stupid their religion is."

(edit)And perhaps this will clear up what I was calling puerile: this desire to offend Muslims (and the way they try to hide behind other issues too.)

That's what I think is going on here. People are trying to offend Muslims because they think Muslims deserve to be offended. The fact is this is still an encyclopedia, and yes some people will get offended by stuff in an encyclopedia. Pictures on the genitalia articles, for example. Except what I see is, to make an analogy, people going to the genitalia page and putting up hardcore porno, then arguing incessantly that it should be included on the page simply "because it's a matter of free speech" or "because we must illustrate three-way copulation on the genitalia page." So I'd call that sort puerile too, no matter if the motivation was "we need to shake people's sexual sensibilities so they stop getting offended" or just a simple "haha I'm putting up porn on the Internets"

This post has been edited by Ben:

If the goal is to avoid controversy and hurt feelings, then we may as well close shop. Or is there something here which we're actually trying to accomplish?

That's ridiculous Proabivouac. The contrapositive stands just as firmly. Are you trying to upset people? Or write an encyclopedia? The Supreme Court presented respect when countered with the same points, and Wikipedia can't seem to do the same.

Wikipedia seems to live in permanent fear of the slippery slope of precedence. It seems the only reason they have contemplated the "Do No Harm" principle in BLPs is that the likes of Slim realised that they were themselves exposed, otherwise they would have acknowledged that it is not just BLPs that may harm living people.

As they cannot frame a general rule that says "Sometimes tact and diplomacy is required, even in an encyclopedia" they are stuffed. EB can do this stuff silently, out of the public eye.

Actually, they could frame such a rule, but there is not the collective maturity to be able to apply it. That is a fundamental difference between responsible editorial control, where difficult decisions can be evaluated on a case by case basis, and the <insert Moulton phrase of the day here> of Wikipedia.

It seems the only reason they have contemplated the "Do No Harm" principle in BLPs is that the likes of Slim realised that they were themselves exposed, otherwise they would have acknowledged that it is not just BLPs that may harm living people.

Can we not distinguish between real harm (reputation, career, family) to actual people and imaginary harm to a long-dead ideologue who supposedly didn't like his picture taken?

I'll agree with you, though, that there is at least one other way Wikipedia can harm people…by misinforming them:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15472

The one is libel, the other is fraud. Whereas the one we're complaining about here, blasphemy, ceased being illegal (at least where Wikipedia is published) some time ago.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

It seems the only reason they have contemplated the "Do No Harm" principle in BLPs is that the likes of Slim realised that they were themselves exposed, otherwise they would have acknowledged that it is not just BLPs that may harm living people.

Can we not distinguish between real harm (reputation, career, family) to actual people and imaginary harm to a long-dead ideologue who supposedly didn't like his picture taken?

I'll agree with you, though, that there is at least one other way Wikipedia can harm people…by misinforming them:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15472

The one is libel, the other is fraud. Whereas the one we're complaining about here, blasphemy, ceased being illegal (at least where Wikipedia is published) some time ago.

I think it is a matter of culture. While I am as tired of PC or over-sensitivity (I like Christmas lights in the High Street, I say Merry Christmas, not Seasons Greetings), I do accept that there are a large number of people who have been taught by those they would find it difficult to question, that these images are forbidden. So although we may think it is obvious and common sense, for many of these people it is setting a bunch of strangers against the most respected person in their community. However right "we" may be, it is not a battle that you will win and the consequences are immense.

I think it is interesting to look at a less sensitive, but intrusive cultural difference: loss of face.

I taught some Malayans how to use a particular programming language here in the UK offices of the company. What became clear was that others in the department were struggling to cope with the apparent intransigence of some of the new intake. They had not heard of "loss of face."

All I had to do was to rephrase, and to use some different approaches - things that actually work very well over here. So don't say "You have mis-understood", say "I clearly haven't explained that well." Don't say "You got it wrong" say "I don't think it will work because of this issue here." Give them the chance to correct their own problems rather than putting them down and it all worked out fine. Eventually, they come for help when something is wrong, whereas before they would not admit to issues, because of trust - they know they are not going to be embarrassed. Job done.

Yes, it is bad to be inaccurate in matching up the different forms of harm, and I accept your correction on that. That does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing the right thing. I mean, what harm does it do if someone does not want a certain picture presented - not a lot, unless you are worried about principles. When you worry only about principles then you are on dangerous ground.

Blasphemy is still illegal in the UK, though it is nearly a dead law.

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

I mean, what harm does it do if someone does not want a certain picture presented - not a lot, unless you are worried about principles. When you worry only about principles then you are on dangerous ground.

Well, I want the very most scholarly, accurate and deadpan dispassionate/clinical/disinterested resource on Islam available. No publication can be everything to everyone. I would hope that, say, a public statement by the American State Department would take all these things into consideration, just as I'd hope that a book by Watt or Lewis etc. that I picked up would ignore them. I'd be uncomfortable walking with a friend with a picture of Muhammad on her t-shirt. I'd be uncomfortable going to the university library and finding that images of Muhammad were no longer available.

So in part, the question is, what is Wikipedia, a scholarly resource or mass media?

There is a good deal of material in the academic literature, which while neutral and accurate, is highly offensive to believing Muslims. You may be aware that, in some quarters, the entire Western field of Islamic studies ("Orientalism") is thought intolerably offensive.

Perhaps the problem arises from the globalization of the web and of the english language . Maybe academia as it exists can't survive this transition? The great works of Western Islamic scholars almost certainly could not have been produced in this global collaborative environment. What's missing (another thing closely related to the thing I said was missing before) is the idea that it's okay for the West to be the West, and more specifically that it's okay for academia to be academia, and secular.

Instead, while every other publication has its own editorial policy, where every nation sets its own local standards, we have to be everything to everybody. There is no Anglophone Wikipedia where Anglophone standards can be reflected, except en.wikipedia.org. Whereas the fact that the Arabic Wikipedia reflects the standards of the Arab world (e.g., no depictions) is utterly uncontroversial.

Take a look at this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/

Compare that to Wikipedia's Islam article (for all its flaws) and WP has something to be proud of: better than BBC, by miles. But by the logic advanced here, it's worse, because it's less sensitive. And it is. It's also more scholarly and far more informative.

BBC is more like what you'll get if PR is a major concern. Insipid and evasive is never offensive. I feel that's what we're asked to be here: insipid = "tasteless" = the absence of content.

I guess I feel that to preserve the scholarly character of Wikipedia entails tough choices, and telling people no when what they're asking is incompatible with the mission. Perhaps I'm alone here, but if I could wave a magic wand and have WP lose 70% of its readers, be banned from Saudi Arabia and a dozen other countries, but gain scholarly credibility (= citable), I would wave that wand. I'm just not interested in the mass-market global-safe concept of an uncontroversial resource that forces serious researchers to turn elsewhere. A serious secular academic researcher of Muhammad will wish at least to know about these depictions - I don't think anyone can deny that, they are at least very interesting - and that to me is the bottom line.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

So in part, the question is, what is Wikipedia, a scholarly resource or mass media?

Quite a lot of the issues in Wikipedia come down to that question. It clearly is mass media masquerading as a scholarly resource, at least at the moment. It is that realisation that there is a difference between a scholarly work, hidden away comfortably in a library, offending no one, and the "scholarly work" of Wikipedia which is potentially the first thing you come across with a Google.

Being a pragmatist, I see that does make a difference, in the same way we recognise that a conversation on the Internet has different qualities to one that is held face to face.

I am also entirely uncertain as to what the right solution is. My instincts are governed in part by the fact that I do not hold Wikipedia in high esteem. If it were a genuine scholarly work then I would be more inclined to take your part. As it stands, Wikipedia is not the place to take a principled stand.

If it were a genuine scholarly work then I would be more inclined to take your part. As it stands, Wikipedia is not the place to take a principled stand.

Generally, sure, but look at Muhammad and Islam. Look at the references. That's not just window dressing. Some of the writing is less-than-ideal - it's long been recognized that collaborative anything doesn't promote good style, especially when many writers don't have a fluent command of the language - and a few sections of Muhammad are a total mess (actually those which have the least "pov" angle, such as the lists of companions, thus are neglected) - but overall this is pretty serious stuff. "Islam" received a positive review in the press from a real lifetime Islamic scholar, who described the presentation as "clinical" without being boring. If all of Wikipedia were like this, I have to imagine that the project would be held in high regard.

I know there are problems with both articles, but this is is not the usual Wikipedia where everything is totally suspect. In both cases, it is far better than anything else you'll find for free on the web, or probably in most books with the same degree of coverage (summary.) There are countless religious and otherwise polemic sites, and a few "interfaith understanding" sites like BBC's, but there isn't anything else like this.

Can we not distinguish between real harm (reputation, career, family) to actual people and imaginary harm to a long-dead ideologue who supposedly didn't like his picture taken?

Are you so cold as to be unable to acknowledge that some things remain sacred to people of other cultures? Our own culture has almost no sacred spaces anymore. But that does not mean that we need not respect those sacred spaces of others.

Whereas the one we're complaining about here, blasphemy, ceased being illegal (at least where Wikipedia is published) some time ago.

In which country? Wikipedia is an international publication and it affects people in many, many countries. It's just that Wikipedia, like much of world politics, is mostly governed by Americans. In this case, how sad that the treatment of something sacred to other cultures is being pissed on, as it were.

That's the first time I've heard that an article should explain in the article itself why what is presented has been presented. Usually this is on the talk page.

No, I asked you to back up what you've said on this board. You haven't done that, of course.

As for undue weight, please remember that this is a biography of Muhammad the actual man, not an article about how Muslims represent and venerate Muhammad. Images of biographical subjects don't suggest that the images are part of any cultural movement, modern or otherwise: they are only depictions of the subject.

Most images of biographical subjects have no cult or fame at all, in most cases, the reader will never have seen them before, which is good: if readers only see what they already know, they've learned nothing.

And these pictures are pictures of the man? No, they aren't. They are representations of a venerated figure. As such they are a vanishingly small minority of such representations, and ruled out by WP:FRINGE. Unless you thought that they were photographs of the man.

Reductio ad absurdum is a simple matter in this instance: if only one image survives of a biographical subject, and most people haven't seen it or heard of it, we can't include it in the article: because the norm is for no image to be made or seen, its inclusion violates undue weight.

You're right, that is absurd. Also irrelevant, as the norm is not "for no image to be made or seen", merely that few images are available. There is a difference.

The logical fallacy is to count depictions never created as being "represented" by the absence of depictions which were. We may as well shorten the article's text to represent the majority of the world's population who never think about or discuss Muhammad at all. More rationally, an image which, for whatever reason, was never created, is aptly and sufficiently "represented" by its own failure to appear.

That isn't a fallacy, actually. And your analogy isn't an analogy. If the depictions were not being created for a reason, and if depictions that were created were clearly a fringe approach, to give those depictions weight of this sort is quite a different matter.

I'm so tired of all these essentially random arguments…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
http://cache.boston.com/images/bostondirtd...d_Chewbacca.jpg

Now that is random.

The only honest argument is that forwarded by Glass bead game and Disilliusioned lackey: the display of the images upsets many Muslims for reasons the rest of us don't relate to and can't truly understand, and we should avoid this because it's only right/they have lots of oil/they might get violent etc. Muslims don't like it, and that's all we need to know. Appeals to novel interpetations of Wikipedia policy as the deus ex machina which will come and elegantly solve the apparent contradiction between the pursuit of disinterested neutrality and public relations concerns are wastes of everybody's time.

A novel interpretation for you, perhaps. Perfectly obvious to those of us who don't see WP as a way to play out little wars.

In your opinion, is that the only reason why non-Muslims have ever displayed these images? Including the French National Library and the University of Edinburgh?

By all means go ahead and guess what my opinion is. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

What's missing here is an acknowledgment that the images serve a legitimate scholarly purpose.

If Islam were a thing of the past - if there were no Muslims to complain about the images, or for trolls to upset - if no Wikipedia editors had any opinions of their own about Islam - would they be displayed?

Of course they would be. And the reason they would be is exactly that other motivation that you refuse to see: to inform.

If they would be, that would still be an error.

I mean, what harm does it do if someone does not want a certain picture presented - not a lot, unless you are worried about principles. When you worry only about principles then you are on dangerous ground.

Well, I want the very most scholarly, accurate and deadpan dispassionate/clinical/disinterested resource on Islam available. No publication can be everything to everyone. I would hope that, say, a public statement by the American State Department would take all these things into consideration, just as I'd hope that a book by Watt or Lewis etc. that I picked up would ignore them. I'd be uncomfortable walking with a friend with a picture of Muhammad on her t-shirt. I'd be uncomfortable going to the university library and finding that images of Muhammad were no longer available.

So in part, the question is, what is Wikipedia, a scholarly resource or mass media?

There is a good deal of material in the academic literature, which while neutral and accurate, is highly offensive to believing Muslims. You may be aware that, in some quarters, the entire Western field of Islamic studies ("Orientalism") is thought intolerably offensive.
....

I guess I feel that to preserve the scholarly character of Wikipedia entails tough choices, and telling people no when what they're asking is incompatible with the mission. Perhaps I'm alone here, but if I could wave a magic wand and have WP lose 70% of its readers, be banned from Saudi Arabia and a dozen other countries, but gain scholarly credibility (= citable), I would wave that wand. I'm just not interested in the mass-market global-safe concept of an uncontroversial resource that forces serious researchers to turn elsewhere. A serious secular academic researcher of Muhammad will wish at least to know about these depictions - I don't think anyone can deny that, they are at least very interesting - and that to me is the bottom line.

The "academic literature" that Wikipedia cites on Islam and that you would no doubt like to see expanded comes mainly from hacks and bigoted time-servers outside the academy. Don't make me laugh. Robert Spencer and his under-educated ilk do not a scholarly character make.

When you're a small site, you can afford to do things that will highly offend people in the name of free speech, because you have little effect on the real world. But when you get to the point that Wikipedia has, you can't do everything you're legally allowed to do. You sometimes have to be diplomatic.

I don't think most Wikipedians realize this.

Reductio ad absurdum is a simple matter in this instance: if only one image survives of a biographical subject, and most people haven't seen it or heard of it, we can't include it in the article: because the norm is for no image to be made or seen, its inclusion violates undue weight.

You're right, that is absurd. Also irrelevant, as the norm is not "for no image to be made or seen", merely that few images are available. There is a difference.

The logical fallacy is to count depictions never created as being "represented" by the absence of depictions which were. We may as well shorten the article's text to represent the majority of the world's population who never think about or discuss Muhammad at all. More rationally, an image which, for whatever reason, was never created, is aptly and sufficiently "represented" by its own failure to appear.

That isn't a fallacy, actually. And your analogy isn't an analogy. If the depictions were not being created for a reason, and if depictions that were created were clearly a fringe approach, to give those depictions weight of this sort is quite a different matter.

So, if someone deliberately didn't create an image, this must be represented by removing another one.

Can you name even one other situation in which this logic should apply?

When kings commission artwork from the greatest living scholars, that's "a fringe approach"…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jami_al-Tawarikh
…after all, it's only maybe a few dozen of people involved, right?

More honest and direct is to state that many people today don't like seeing them there. But because that's not a Wikipedia policy, we're reduced to this.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Reductio ad absurdum is a simple matter in this instance: if only one image survives of a biographical subject, and most people haven't seen it or heard of it, we can't include it in the article: because the norm is for no image to be made or seen, its inclusion violates undue weight.

You're right, that is absurd. Also irrelevant, as the norm is not "for no image to be made or seen", merely that few images are available. There is a difference.

The logical fallacy is to count depictions never created as being "represented" by the absence of depictions which were. We may as well shorten the article's text to represent the majority of the world's population who never think about or discuss Muhammad at all. More rationally, an image which, for whatever reason, was never created, is aptly and sufficiently "represented" by its own failure to appear.

That isn't a fallacy, actually. And your analogy isn't an analogy. If the depictions were not being created for a reason, and if depictions that were created were clearly a fringe approach, to give those depictions weight of this sort is quite a different matter.

So, if someone deliberately didn't create an image, this must be represented by removing another one.

Can you name even one other situation in which this logic should apply?


More honest and direct is to state that many people today don't like seeing them there. But because that's not a Wikipedia policy, we're reduced to this.

As usual, you show no understanding of other points of view, and wish to reduce complicated issues to something simple enough to understand. As a matter of fact, I do like seeing them there. An article without a picture looks silly, and these are nice pictures. However, they aren't the right pictures.

When kings commission artwork from the greatest living scholars, that's "a fringe approach"…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jami_al-Tawarikh
…after all, it's only maybe a few dozen of people involved, right?

No, its a single culture at a single moment in time out of several hundred different cultures at several hundred other moments in time that have preferred other means of representation. That is known as a fringe POV, and you're pushing it to piss people off.

No, its a single culture at a single moment in time out of several hundred different cultures at several hundred other moments in time that have preferred other means of representation.

Again let us bear in mind that the article is about Muhammad, not Muslims, or even mainly what Muslims think about Muhammad. The appearance of a particular fact or image doesn't in any way suggest it to play a part in Muslim veneration of Muhammad, past or present.

On the other hand, articles such as Islam and Muslims are exactly about Muslims and what they believe. Here, an image of Muhammad would be subject to your objection: depictions of Muhammad are not a significant part of Islam, present or past, and would be pretty much off-topic.

It's occasionally been suggested on Talk:Muhammad that the article be split in two, one entitled "Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)" - an unambigous POV fork. Silly as it sounds (though every bit as sincere as the request to remove the depictions,) this suggestion highlights the assumption which underpins the objections: that the article is not a regular biography, but a description of an aspect of the Islamic religion, which might as well be entirely mythical, per the comparison to Zeus above.

A secular biography of Muhammad is not in any way based upon what Muslims believe, it's based upon the historical records of Muhammad's life as interpreted by academic scholars. If you've read the article, you'll find a number of things that don't constitute any significant part, or even diverge from, what Muslims believe.

Similarly, the depictions weren't intended by their creators to be devotional, but to illustrate history for their commissioners.

"…a single culture at a single moment in time out of several hundred different cultures at several hundred other moments in time…"

It's wildy incorrect to conflate the Il-Khanate, Safavids and Ottomans (at least) to "a single culture at a single moment in time." And they're hardly marginal, even in the vast scheme of Islamic (or world) history.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

This is really tiresome. It is a debating society approach to address an issue which is not important to one side, save for to win an argument, for the argument's sake.

As for Wikipedia being a representation of serious academic opinion. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

Again let us bear in mind that the article is about Muhammad, not Muslims, or even mainly what Muslims think about Muhammad. The appearance of a particular fact or image doesn't in any way suggest it to play a part in Muslim veneration of Muhammad, past or present.

No, it merely implies that this is how he was represented, past or present. Which is a lie.

A secular biography of Muhammad is not in any way based upon what Muslims believe, it's based upon the historical records of Muhammad's life as interpreted by academic scholars. If you've read the article, you'll find a number of things that don't constitute any significant part, or even diverge from, what Muslims believe.

Yes. And some of it diverges from what mainstream academia believes. That's the part you want expanded.

Similarly, the depictions weren't intended by their creators to be devotional, but to illustrate history for their commissioners.

Their commissioners. We might not have the same standards of illustration as fourteenth century autocrats. I do hope not, actually.

It's wildy incorrect to conflate the Il-Khanate, Safavids and Ottomans (at least) to "a single culture at a single moment in time." And they're hardly marginal, even in the vast scheme of Islamic (or world) history.

You haven't even read the article you provided, have you? A particular phase of the Mongol khanate, early in the assimilation process, during which this was produced, and in which the artist exceeded his brief. Typical laziness.

Listen, its clear to me and to absolutely everyone else who has commented here that your only aim, and that of people like you, is to put irrelevant and marginal stuff like this in to piss people off. Pissing off the religious is something I am happy to do, but I would rather it not happen on a nominally objective page. Those of us who still have ambitions for WP would rather that it not be screwed up by weirdos fighting insane battles from their armchairs.

Listen, its clear to me and to absolutely everyone else who has commented here that your only aim, and that of people like you, is to put irrelevant and marginal stuff like this in to piss people off…Those of us who still have ambitions for WP would rather that it not be screwed up by weirdos fighting insane battles from their armchairs.

Your comments convince me that no purpose is served by discussing this with you any further. I've no interest in trading off ad hominem attacks and speculations (as Moulton would put it, "theories of mind") with you. Flame warring is occurring on en.wikipedia.org, if you'd like to join in. Maybe you can open an ArbCom case and attack people there - I hear they get off on this shit.

Robert Spencer and his under-educated ilk do not a scholarly character make.

I know I said I woudn't, but I just saw this and it bugs me because…it's completely untrue. Spencer is not cited in Muhammad, or on Islam. The consensus (including me) is that he is not a reliable academic source. References are right there in the "notes" and "references" section, if there's someone else's character you'd like to impugn.

Listen, its clear to me and to absolutely everyone else who has commented here that your only aim, and that of people like you, is to put irrelevant and marginal stuff like this in to piss people off…Those of us who still have ambitions for WP would rather that it not be screwed up by weirdos fighting insane battles from their armchairs.

Your comments convince me that no purpose is served by discussing this with you any further. I've no interest in trading off ad hominem attacks and speculations (as Moulton would put it, "theories of mind") with you. Flame warring is occurring on en.wikipedia.org, if you'd like to join in. Maybe you can open an ArbCom case and attack people there - I hear they get off on this shit.

As I said, you are sadly unlikely to change your mind. I do urge you to note that of all of us here, nobody really agrees with you; perhaps some soul-searching is in order.

The broader problem still holds: individual articles in WP on such subjects are used as battlegrounds by people, like you, who care too much; which is why I, for example, try to stay away, even though they're some of the worst on the pedia.

Robert Spencer and his under-educated ilk do not a scholarly character make.

I know I said I woudn't, but I just saw this and it bugs me because…it's completely untrue. Spencer is not cited in Muhammad, or on Islam. The consensus (including me) is that he is not a reliable academic source. References are right there in the "notes" and "references" section, if there's someone else's character you'd like to impugn.

Untrue how? Its still true that they're over-used. in Islam articles They're fighting about it on the noticeboards right now. There are a bunch of other polemicists who are overused in religion articles.

As far as theories of mind go, I imagine it's safe to say that a number of people are disturbed by this kerfuffle, albeit for varying reasons.

Perhaps a useful thing to think about is how to respond to a disturbance of this sort.

For starters, it occurs to me that it's fair to remark that some people are more disturbed than others, and some are more responsive than others, although not necessarily in a manner that subsides the burbling disturbance.

I'd agree it's hypocrisy, but I also did actually mean the psychological term "cognitive dissonance." If you disagree, so be it. It too is unimportant, more important is the clarifying sentence following it.

Still, cognitive dissonance is not the most salient aspect here. It's "denial".

They have racist (or chauvanist) inclinations, and can't bear to face up to it.

There is quite a thoughtful blog post about this here

http://www.knowprose.com/node/18427

There is quite a thoughtful blog post about this here

http://www.knowprose.com/node/18427

It is not the same petition. This one, with only a handful of signatures, invokes "terrorism", "hatred" and "incite 1 billion Muslims.

To: Wikepedia Authorities
The wikipedia has shown the picture of our Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon him) in their article on Muhammad. It is highly deplorable act and i request you all to order the wikipedia to remove this picture which is fueling religious hatred. Who ever has placed this picture is a true terrorist as he is trying to incite more then 1 billion Muslims of the world."

Compare this with:

In Islam pictures or Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other holly figures are not allowed, but on wikipedia they has published some pictures that are showing not only a body with white face but an image that has a complete face.. that is even not allowed by SHITAT fact of Islam.
i request all my brothers and sisters to sign this petition so we can tell wikipedia to remove them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
specially this image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg

The dignified petition has now 69,124 signatures. The other one has 80. Wikien-l chooses to only address this less dignified and failed petition.

There is quite a thoughtful blog post about this here

http://www.knowprose.com/node/18427

The key point is that the goal of achieving a what's called the "neutral point of view" (if followed) is completely incompatible with the goal of cultural sensitivity. Put another way, the most valuable scholarly resource (if achieved) is not the same as the most "culture safe" global mass media.

A neutral treatment of Muhammad and Islam is not normal for Islamic countries. Neutrality towards Islam, Muhammad, Allah, the Qur'an, etc., is, by definition, apostasy. I'm not aware of any secular biographies of Muhammad in the Islamic world. What would they be for, when the answers are known already?

The cause of conflict here isn't Wikipedia, but the internet. If all media is digitized, instead of being trapped in books, and online - and shouldn't that be the goal? - the unintended consequence is that it's asked to run a new gauntlet of censorship regimes (and not just Islamic, but Chinese, etc.), particularly because it's in English. To refuse is to upset foreign people and governments; to accept is to uniquely cede the character of our own media.

I say uniquely, because no one disputes the right of Islamic media to reflect Islamic standards, for Chinese media to reflect Chinese standards…many of these are disagreeable to us in the Anglophone West, but that this media doesn't belong to us is uncontroversial. All we have to do to avoid it is not consume that media. For most of us, that's not much of a sacrifice.

The growth of the internet, the rise of English as a global language and the predominance of English media make our words louder than we want them to be. Ideally, complainers would just visit some other site…but that expectation is also culture bound, that's what we do if we find a publication's editorial policy distasteful, because we're used to and acknowledge freedom of the press. They don't, which would be fine, except that now they see our media as belonging equally to them. Our house is our house, they say, and your house is everybody's house (rather like the attitude towards conversions, and religious freedom in general, actually.)

This is a real problem, and tough choices need to be made. There's a reason why the Islamic world isn't producing encyclopedias - or any significant contemporary academic scholarship in the humanities, much less secular treatments of Muhammad and Islamic history - and it behooves us to ask if we want to move - even a little bit - in that direction.

Because the way things are going (and referring to an earlier discussion in this thread,) there won't be any libraries where things can hide from the Western public, and there won't be any English-language media which can hide from the English-speaking international public. It's all going online.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

"Fears about the government's role in the university's choice of books began in earnest last May, with the dropping of the controversial book, "Mohammed," by Maxime Rodinson, reportedly after a group of AUC [American University of Cairo] alumni complained, this time, on religious grounds. As in the current case, newspapers spearheaded a public campaign against the book, resulting in the government banning it, and leaving AUC highly sensitive and vulnerable to future scrutiny."
http://leb.net/~aljadid/features/MohammedS...stilePress.html

Why was Rodinson's book banned? Because, as an acclaimed secular academic biography of Muhammad, its contents are deeply offensive to Muslims (""denigrate[s] the Islamic faith"):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story...1229990,00.html

Also banned was Montgomery Watt's “Islamic Political Thought." These are the very luminaries of the field.

If the contents of these works are made available online, and Egyptians speak English and have access to the web, they're effectively no longer banned. Egypt's interest in upholding its cultural standards and our interest in upholding ours are directly at odds, and can't both be satisfied, unless local access to the web (or to particular sites) is itself banned. See Communist China.

"And one writer, Salaheddin Mohsen, is currently in jail awaiting a state security court trial on charges of trying to spread atheist beliefs via his writings. The charge sheet says he admitted during questioning that he "denies the existence of God and does not recognize the Islamic religion."
http://www.washington-report.org/archives/...00/0007032.html

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

The key point.......A neutral treatment of Muhammad and Islam is not normal for Islamic countries. Neutrality towards Islam, Muhammad, Allah, the Qur'an, etc., is, by definition, apostasy.

Yeah, and criticism of your government during war is treason.

I'm not aware of any secular biographies of Muhammad in the Islamic world. What would they be for, when the answers are known already? ....The cause of conflict here isn't Wikipedia, but the internet.

Not really. You are extrapolating this to a greater picture, which is inappropriate.

If all media is digitized, instead of being trapped in books, and online - and shouldn't that be the goal? - the unintended consequence is that it's asked to run a new gauntlet of censorship regimes (and not just Islamic, but Chinese, etc.), particularly because it's in English.

There is plenty that is censored in "English". For cultural or whatever reasons, which we consider reasonable. Religion simply isn't a big deal for Anglophonic culture of late, so it isn't as controversial.

To refuse is to upset foreign people and governments; to accept is to uniquely cede the character of our own media.

Foreign? What's Foreign?

When the WMF Chairman is French. When WMF servers are in the US, France, Germany, and other countries, and the membership is pan-global, then the word foreign no longer applies.

You are speaking as if Wikipedia/WMF were an American institution, and it is not. Not even Wiki-en is American.

Wikipedia is a "non-state actor."

to accept is to uniquely cede the character of our own media.

And this turns it into a "caving into those who would attack the way of 'our culture', when it isn't 'our culture' at all (American).

And again, mind you, the U.S. Supreme Court took enough concern for the very same concern (image of mohammed) to alter verbiage to halt offense to others. All this talk about "giving in to others" wasn't an issue for the Supreme Court. Respect was an issue. Not in this discussion, sadly.

There's a reason why the Islamic world isn't producing encyclopedias - or any significant contemporary academic scholarship in the humanities,

Cheap shot. And inaccurate.

much less secular treatments of Muhammad and Islamic history - and it behooves us to ask if we want to move - even a little bit - in that direction.

This is the bottom line to what you are doing/supporting. Using Wikipedia to stick a thorn in something to attempt to provoke change. It is a bad strategy, and will backfire. No one is going to "see the light" and veer away from Mohammed or Islam when you've offended their sensibilities.

Because the way things are going (and referring to an earlier discussion in this thread,) there won't be any libraries where things can hide from the Western public, and there won't be any English-language media which can hide from the English-speaking international public. It's all going online.

Panic.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

much less secular treatments of Muhammad and Islamic history - and it behooves us to ask if we want to move - even a little bit - in that direction.

This is the bottom line to what you are doing/supporting. Using Wikipedia to stick a thorn in something to attempt to provoke change. It is a bad strategy, and will backfire. No one is going to "see the light" and veer away from Mohammed or Islam when you've offended their sensibilities.

Of course, most believing liberals (in the classic sense of the term) will prefer that scholarly resources free of religious censorship are available to all who seek them, whatever the prejudices of their societies at large.

At the same time, it's a fact of life that not all of the world works that way. Given the choice between having to conform to (per the examples above) Egyptian standards, and Egypt banning it, I would choose the latter. While not ideal, at least we'd be able to maintain what we're doing now and bring in forward into the digital age.

The other way requires that we abandon secular scholarship of Islam, or at least confine it to legacy media…the end result being that even our own educated elites can't figure out what's going on (and that's bad enough as it is.) Even if Wikipedia is banned elsewhere, it's vital to maintain the integrity of our own intellectual sphere. Accommodating a novel (to us) series of religious demands - the breadth of which has not been frankly acknowledged in this thread (it's not only images, remember Rushdie's Satanic Verses? and see Watt and Rodinson above) - compromises that integrity on a subject vital to our own collective future.

Because the way things are going (and referring to an earlier discussion in this thread,) there won't be any libraries where things can hide from the Western public, and there won't be any English-language media which can hide from the English-speaking international public. It's all going online.

Panic.

That's not panic, but hope. It's a very good thing that all this information will be available to all (providing it's reliable, naturally.) It's revolutionary, really. Books are ridiculously inefficient. Even just quoting from them is a hassle. Going to the library, much more so.

I'm just identifying a downside, which is that along with new consumers come new critics, many of whom simply don't share the goals of the enlightenment which academic scholarship is intended to advance.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

There's a reason why the Islamic world isn't producing encyclopedias - or any significant contemporary academic scholarship in the humanities,

Cheap shot. And inaccurate..

If an Islamic religious leader were to observe that America's lack of Islamic law enabled high crime rates and out-of-wedlock births, I would consider that a fair shot, not a cheap one.

much less secular treatments of Muhammad and Islamic history - and it behooves us to ask if we want to move - even a little bit - in that direction.

This is the bottom line to what you are doing/supporting. Using Wikipedia to stick a thorn in something to attempt to provoke change. It is a bad strategy, and will backfire. No one is going to "see the light" and veer away from Mohammed or Islam when you've offended their sensibilities.

Of course, most believing liberals (in the classic sense of the term) will prefer that scholarly resources free of religious censorship are available to all who seek them, whatever the prejudices of their societies at large.

At the same time, it's a fact of life that not all of the world works that way. Given the choice between having to conform to (per the examples above) Egyptian standards, and Egypt banning it, I would choose the latter. While not ideal, at least we'd be able to maintain what we're doing now and bring in forward into the digital age.

The other way requires that we abandon secular scholarship of Islam, or at least confine it to legacy media…the end result being that even our own educated elites can't figure out what's going on (and that's bad enough as it is.) Even if Wikipedia is banned elsewhere, it's vital to maintain the integrity of our own intellectual sphere. Accommodating a novel (to us) series of religious demands - the breadth of which has not been frankly acknowledged in this thread (it's not only images, remember Rushdie's Satanic Verses? and see Watt and Rodinson above) - compromises that integrity on a subject vital to our own collective future.

Because the way things are going (and referring to an earlier discussion in this thread,) there won't be any libraries where things can hide from the Western public, and there won't be any English-language media which can hide from the English-speaking international public. It's all going online.

Panic.

That's not panic, but hope. It's a very good thing that all this information will be available to all (providing it's reliable, naturally.) It's revolutionary, really. Books are ridiculously inefficient. Even just quoting from them is a hassle. Going to the library, much more so.

I'm just identifying a downside, which is that along with new consumers come new critics, many of whom simply don't share the goals of the enlightenment which academic scholarship is intended to advance.

Once again, you are digressing for digression's sake. The main point is that the pictures bother people, deeply, for religious reasons. Period.

If you want to start a talk page on censorship and islam and the implications that this has for someone's mama, then fine. But why not give the pictures a rest. The U.S. Supreme Court did that and I don't see why a bunch of laypersons have any reason not to either.

Soliloqueys on liberal versus conservatism (and ps: Earl Warren who made the Mohammed frieze decision was quite conservative), on change in islam, on hypocrisy in islam, references to the satanic verses, are all just basically grasping at non-straws... If you think you are teaching anyone anything by making an issue of those pictures - what you are mostly teaching is how ethnocentric Americans can be, and how completely misguidedly they can be in the assumption that pushing some theoretical agenda will change people in a way that they think it will.

The idea that publishing those pictures will free muslims from some form of oppression reminds me of the idea that preventing access to birth control and abortion will prevent pre-marital sex (a disastrous theory, badly thought out). The simile is that an idealized objective was put forth with a method which had no link to the desired outcome.

Must like putting up the pictures will create more open societies. (not).

As for "liberal", the "classic" meaning of the term implies freedom from government intervention. Political scientists use the term to indicate free markets and a lack of intervention from government. The United States commonplace nomenclature has bastardized the term, such that in November 2004, the UK periodical economist noted (about the word 'liberal') "It's our word, and we want it back".

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

But why not give the pictures a rest. The U.S. Supreme Court did that and I don't see why a bunch of laypersons have any reason not to either.

Why not follow your own advice?

But why not give the pictures a rest. The U.S. Supreme Court did that and I don't see why a bunch of laypersons have any reason not to either.

Why not follow your own advice?

?

Robert Spencer and his under-educated ilk do not a scholarly character make.

I know I said I woudn't, but I just saw this and it bugs me because…it's completely untrue. Spencer is not cited in Muhammad, or on Islam. The consensus (including me) is that he is not a reliable academic source. References are right there in the "notes" and "references" section, if there's someone else's character you'd like to impugn.

I've read quite a bit of Spencer. Interesting writing. Biased. Very biased. But interesting.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Compare how Muslims feel about pictures of the Prophet on Wikipedia to how some folks here feel about pictures of children on Wikipedia.

Consider whether there is any similarity in those feelings.

In a politicized culture, those in power can outlaw whatever makes them feel uncomfortable. Those not in power generally cannot exercise such preventive regulation.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

Compare how Muslims feel about pictures of the Prophet on Wikipedia to how some folks here feel about pictures of children on Wikipedia.

Or rather, on a site specializing in Sado-Masochism. Not Wikipedia.

Actually, it was both. Greg decided he didn't want pictures of his daughter on WP.

Compare how Muslims feel about pictures of the Prophet on Wikipedia to how some folks here feel about pictures of children on Wikipedia.

Consider whether there is any similarity in those feelings.

In a politicized culture, those in power can outlaw whatever makes them feel uncomfortable. Those in power generally cannot exercise such preventive regulation.

This one of the very few voices in the discussion that goes to the literal heart of the matter. The dignified petition is powerful not because it threatens terrorism and hauvoc, but because it does not. In its quite understatement and simplicity it is meant to reach a level of empathy. With this comparison between a parent's feeling about seeing their children exploited for vile purposes Moulton has show he has achieved this empathy.

Illustrations of Muhammad are not, at all, analagous to images of children used for vile purposes. In one, the artist is getting sexual pleasure from looking at the picture; in the other, the artist is trying to represent history. One picture is deliberately disrespectful; one is not in the slightest intended to disrespect anyone. It's offensive to me that a comparison is even being drawn here.

Remember too, there a picture of Jesus submerged in a jar of urine on Wikipedia. If intended disrespect of Christians is allowed, why is unintended disrespect of Muslims a terrible moral offense?

Actually, it was both. Greg decided he didn't want pictures of his daughter on WP.

Only because he thought that the pictures would be misappropriated by paedo sites. Presumably he originally put them there, so he has no objection to them being on WP so long as they don't go anywhere else.

Illustrations of Muhammad are not, at all, analagous to images of children used for vile purposes.

In their minds yes, it is that bad.

In one, the artist is getting sexual pleasure from looking at the picture; in the other, the artist is trying to represent history.

I'll ignore the sexual reference because it is fraught with cultural cognitive dissonance which are beyond the scope of this argument. Per the 'history' comment, no, the images aren't historical. They were created (in the case of the cartoons) to provoke and insult. As for history, ... no. Those pictures aren't there for history.

One picture is deliberately disrespectful; one is not in the slightest intended to disrespect anyone.

Actually the 2nd comment (disrespect) applies 100% to the Mohammed depictions, and I don't think that child porno is disrespectful, it is horrific or worse.

It's offensive to me that a comparison is even being drawn here.

That's because you are ignorant of that particular cultural (or pan-cultural religious) norm. Have a few conversations. The persons in question could explain it better than I.

Remember too, there a picture of Jesus submerged in a jar of urine on Wikipedia. If intended disrespect of Christians is allowed, why is unintended disrespect of Muslims a terrible moral offense?

Yeah, those are disgusting, sure. But in 2007 (or 2003, whenever those came into discussion) most of the western world wasn't all that concerned about disrepecting God or religion(s), as a general rule. 500 years ago, the person who created such an image would have been killed for it.

Stop trying to justify the Mohammed pics/drawings with moral relativism.

Look at what our own Supreme Court did. They took the same situation and made a case for re-wording and re-framing which satisfied all parties, and took away any implied disrespect.

Your position is telling the offended parties to "get over it" and start thinking like you. That's the basic Wikipedia-Way. In a nutshell.

Or the American way. Think of that the next time you wonder why people hate Americans.

The feelings to compare are not those of the exploiter, but those of the exploited.

Remember too, there a picture of Jesus submerged in a jar of urine on Wikipedia. If intended disrespect of Christians is allowed, why is unintended disrespect of Muslims a terrible moral offense?

Yeah, those are disgusting, sure. But in 2007 (or 2003, whenever those came into discussion) most of the western world wasn't all that concerned about disrepecting God or religion(s), as a general rule. 500 years ago, the person who created such an image would have been killed for it.

Stop trying to justify the Mohammed pics/drawings with moral relativism.

Look at what our own Supreme Court did. They took the same situation and made a case for re-wording and re-framing which satisfied all parties, and took away any implied disrespect.

Your position is telling the offended parties to "get over it" and start thinking like you. That's the basic Wikipedia-Way. In a nutshell.

Or the American way. Think of that the next time you wonder why people hate Americans.

You ignored my point. Christians don't get to ban images of Jesus in urine. Hindus don't get to ban killing of cows. Why, then, do Muslims get the power to ban things that offend them?

You ignored my point. Christians don't get to ban images of Jesus in urine. Hindus don't get to ban killing of cows. Why, then, do Muslims get the power to ban things that offend them?

Where?

Yes they do. All over the world, Christians have the power to ban things that offend them.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...28/ai_n14082960

Okay, Christians shouldn't get the power to ban things that offend them. And on Wikipedia they don't.

Okay, Christians shouldn't get the power to ban things that offend them. And on Wikipedia they don't.

Experiment : Find a picture of a Black Jesus Christ and place in the top right hand corner of the page to replace the White Jesus. See what happens?

In a politicized culture, those in power can outlaw whatever makes them feel uncomfortable. Those not in power generally cannot exercise such preventive regulation.

And in the examples to which I linked above, we saw that, where Muslims are in power, the can and do outlaw what makes them uncomfortable. No one will say that Egypt's government is particularly representative, or Islamist (they hung Syed Qutb, after all) but on these issues, they're following the public - these don't threaten the government, only transgress popular sensibilities

Supposing these same people, unable to ban them outside of their own countries, sent Amazon.com and other on-line booksellers a "respectful" petition to withdraw Rodinson, Watt, Rushdie, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Maxime-Rodi...02081455&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Political-Th...02081420&sr=1-6
http://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Verses-Salma...e/dp/0805053093

Should they do it? What I'm hearing is "yes."

What I'm trying to emphasize is that this is not just another tale of Wikipedia's by-now-famous irresponsibility - though some are treating it that way - but another chapter in an ongoing dispute about the indifference of Western society to Islamic sensitivities which, let's not mince words, strictly prohibit freedom of thought and expression about religion in all realms of life, including academia and the arts.

And it seems the fact that the French National Library is displaying one of these historic images (captioned simply "The Prophet Muhammad") has been lost in the shuffle…

http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/index.htm
http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm

Should they also take it down?

May as well ban the whole field of Islamic studies - when you're getting rid of the likes of Watt and Rodinson, who do you suppose will be left? (Maybe John Esposito?) Do you imagine Bernard Lewis is any more palatable to them? Just ban any novel discussing Islam - Booker prizes mean nothing to Islamic jurists.

Someone doesn't like it when the lights are on, so, let's turn them off.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Illustrations of Muhammad are not, at all, analagous to images of children used for vile purposes. In one, the artist is getting sexual pleasure from looking at the picture; in the other, the artist is trying to represent history. One picture is deliberately disrespectful; one is not in the slightest intended to disrespect anyone. It's offensive to me that a comparison is even being drawn here.

Remember too, there a picture of Jesus submerged in a jar of urine on Wikipedia. If intended disrespect of Christians is allowed, why is unintended disrespect of Muslims a terrible moral offense?

Moulton was talking about how the depiction made the offended petitioners feel. It is likely that achieving this kind of empathy takes experience and time. It might even take a few gray hairs. Responding with wankish arguments and distinctions are not a meaningful response.

Moulton was talking about how the depiction made the offended petitioners feel. It is likely that achieving this kind of empathy takes experience and time. It might even take a few gray hairs. Responding with wankish arguments and distinctions are not a meaningful response.

And what about how Rodinson and Watt made Egypt's Muslims feel? What about how Rushdie made them feel? What about how the French National Library will make them feel, if they bother to visit?

From Talk:Muhammad (italics mine):

"please remove the pictures of muhammad (PBUH) as you don't even know how he looks like at all. No one knows how he looks like except ALLAH (SWT). SO if you don't have respect for your own relegion, then don't assume others don't either. And stop with your empiricism ideas."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=188889827

"It seems its some how difficult to have a meeting point, because simply the west can't understand the senstivity of the religious issues for us, and we can't admit the freedom theory of the west as well."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=187050284

"whatever you people do, islam will stay the fastest growing religion in the world and all the world will be muslim someday."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=187299824

Wiki-apologist Ben Yates comments on this on his blog :

http://wikip.blogspot.com/2008/02/about-80...petitioned.html

Notice how so much of the liminal social drama revolves around characterization issues, including mischaracterization, distortion, and character assassination.

Wiki-apologist Ben Yates comments on this on his blog :

http://wikip.blogspot.com/2008/02/about-80...petitioned.html

On WR I'm an apologist. On Wikipedia itself I'm an unknown quantity. To Gerard M. I'm a muckraker. Presumably I'm doing something right.

Presumably I'm doing something right.

Welcome, Wikipediablog!

I think it's fair to say you are a vocal supporter of the Wiki-Universe. Arguing the case in various outlets. Am I right in saying you appeared in the LA Times defending Jimbo over some issue?

Moulton was talking about how the depiction made the offended petitioners feel. It is likely that achieving this kind of empathy takes experience and time. It might even take a few gray hairs. Responding with wankish arguments and distinctions are not a meaningful response.

And what about how Rodinson and Watt made Egypt's Muslims feel? What about how Rushdie made them feel? What about how the French National Library will make them feel, if they bother to visit?

This was a discussion about "WHAT IS IN WIKIPEDIA"™ not "WHAT THE WORLD WRITES ABOUT MUSLIMS"™. Otherwise, let's widen the discussion to:

• What about how TMZ makes Britney Spears feel?
• What about how the NYT makes Dick Cheney feel?
• What about how Jon Stewart makes Bush feel?
• What about how the Christian Right made Bill Clinton feel in 1998?

WHO CARES.

You are dragging up "every example in the world" (Rushdie, etc) into the argument about WIKIPEDIA™ to justify yourself. Which should be your first clue that there is something wrong with your case. As for your comments about what some kids wrote on Talk:Mohammed, about their religion (and not necessarily about the pictures/cartoons. You simply want to teach them a lesson, Proabivoac.

Teaching requires the respect and rapt attention of the 'students'. You get neither by pissing people off. Don't you remember which teachers you listened to in high school? You want to make a point, I believe and you are cutting off the option to do so.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Children don't learn from teachers they don't like.

Children don't learn from teachers they don't like.

We made more than one teacher cry. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) And one pastor. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Kids are brutal.

Back to the point: AND SO IT BEGINS

Wikipedia defends its right to publish Muhammad images
EuropeNews, Denmark -7 minutes ago
Please note that discussion on this talk page has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article and any removal of the pictures ...

(yes, I know the link doesnt work, and no, I don't know why not)

Censor this
Hour.ca, Canada - Jan 23, 2008
Of course, as Wikipedia explains, "The Koran does not explicitly forbid images of Mohammed, but there have been a few Hadith (supplemental traditions) which ...

Don't say *I* didn't tell you so.

This is *not* what Wikipedia needs.

(to become the lightening rod for the so-called clash-of-civilizations)

(a political football between the west and middle-east+other-non-ME-islamic-world)

But suit yourselves....

It's your party......

It's only gonna get worse.

This will make Durovagate™ look like a small garden party.

Okay, Christians shouldn't get the power to ban things that offend them. And on Wikipedia they don't.

Experiment : Find a picture of a Black Jesus Christ and place in the top right hand corner of the page to replace the White Jesus. See what happens?

Bad example. I remember commenting on the question of whether to change to that image from a previous one, and that image in the Jesus article was chosen because it was the oldest relatively clear image available.

The humble petition has garnered the attention of the New York Times. It is time for external civil rights organizations defending the interests of Muslims to weigh in.

The humble petition has garnered the attention of the New York Times. It is time for external civil rights organizations defending the interests of Muslims to weigh in.

The article seems to me quite favorable to Wikipedia's position. They even brought in a favorable professor, whose brief comments echo my earlier observation: by bringing what exists in our libraries online, we're also exposing them to new censorship regimes.

Say, has anyone commented on the fact that the petition says "SHITAT" Muslims?

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-o...-from-wikipedia

That's unlikely to be a spelling error, as I've never seen that letter transcribed as "t", and especially in light of Mr. Ahmad's willingness to express what to us might seem like extreme views (but are in fact quite typical,) and the all caps seems intended to make a point about a certain well-known sect he doesn't much like.

Unlike the Hitler remarks, that's not just a talk page comment; it's at the top of the petition these folks are signing.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

The humble petition has garnered the attention of the New York Times. It is time for external civil rights organizations defending the interests of Muslims to weigh in.

The article seems to me quite favorable to Wikipedia's position. They even brought in a favorable professor, whose brief comments echo my earlier observation: by bringing what exists in our libraries online, we're also exposing them to new censorship regimes.

Say, has anyone commented on the fact that the petition says "SHITAT" Muslims?

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-o...-from-wikipedia

That's unlikely to be a spelling error, as I've never seen that letter transcribed as "t", and especially in light of Mr. Ahmad's willingness to express what to us might seem like extreme views (but are in fact quite typical,) and the all caps seems intended to make a point about a certain well-known sect he doesn't much like.

Unlike the Hitler remarks, that's not just a talk page comment; it's at the top of the petition these folks are signing.

The NYT article is fairly balanced. It interviews a scholar that says while not all Muslim in all ages have blanketly prohibited depictions of the Prophet it is a doctrine that has gained strength in the past century. Your spelling argument is petty. You seem to be grasping at straws. I believe the petition has taken on it's own life and is well beyond Wikipedian Ahmad's control or purpose. What needs to now happen is Muslim forces outside of Wikipedia need to engage in dialog with WMF. It would seem to me the "link to pic" compromise, rejected by the arrogant Wikipedians, could easily be achieved by responsible advocacy.

Your spelling argument is petty.

It's not "spelling," it's a deliberate slur on the Shi'a. The word is Shi'at, not "SHITAT." You should be aware that such sentiments are hardly uncommon.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

The humble petition has garnered the attention of the New York Times. It is time for external civil rights organizations defending the interests of Muslims to weigh in.

The article seems to me quite favorable to Wikipedia's position. They even brought in a favorable professor, whose brief comments echo my earlier observation: by bringing what exists in our libraries online, we're also exposing them to new censorship regimes.

Say, has anyone commented on the fact that the petition says "SHITAT" Muslims?

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-o...-from-wikipedia

That's unlikely to be a spelling error, as I've never seen that letter transcribed as "t", and especially in light of Mr. Ahmad's willingness to express what to us might seem like extreme views (but are in fact quite typical,) and the all caps seems intended to make a point about a certain well-known sect he doesn't much like.

Unlike the Hitler remarks, that's not just a talk page comment; it's at the top of the petition these folks are signing.

The NYT article is fairly balanced. It interviews a scholar that says while not all Muslim in all ages have blanketly prohibited depictions of the Prophet it is a doctrine that has gained strength in the past century. Your spelling argument is petty. You seem to be grasping at straws. I believe the petition has taken on it's own life and is well beyond Wikipedian Ahmad's control or purpose. What needs to now happen is Muslim forces outside of Wikipedia need to engage in dialog with WMF. It would seem to me the "link to pic" compromise, rejected by the arrogant Wikipedians, could easily be achieved by responsible advocacy.

Wikipedians don't like compromise. Not that they have an obligation to do this, but Wikipedia the encyclopedia would be better served by a solution like that.

Of course, maybe Jimbo wants Wikipedia to be a free speech advocacy site. In that case, we should probably tell the people who thought they donated to an encyclopedia.

Your spelling argument is petty.

It's not "spelling," it's a deliberate slur on the Shi'a. The word is Shi'at, not "SHITAT." You should be aware that such sentiments are hardly uncommon.

Makes more sense as a spelling mistake or typo. Does "Shitat" have some meaning that is not apparent to me? Or is this speculation on a "potty" pun? Come on get real if that is what you are saying.

Your spelling argument is petty.

It's not "spelling," it's a deliberate slur on the Shi'a. The word is Shi'at, not "SHITAT." You should be aware that such sentiments are hardly uncommon.

Makes more sense as a spelling mistake or typo. Does "Shitat" have some meaning that is not apparent to me? Or is this speculation on a "potty" pun? Come on get real if that is what you are saying.

That would seem the most straightforward interpretation.

Extreme opposition to Shi'at 'Ali is common among certain sects, notably the one which takes the hardest line against depictions of animate beings. Nothing out of the ordinary, really; he's just expressing this common belief.

This shows that he's well aware of the term:

"all 4 letter words in English dictionary."
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:xlUkB...clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Other memorable quotes from that page include:

"As I don’t belief in Holocaust I see this as a deliberate move to teach our next generations to accept the story of holocaust."
"…it was clear that wikipedia is following a hidden agenda. that agenda is created by admins who are west European and Atheist. so by nature they are anti religion and anti Nazi."
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:xlUkB...clnk&cd=1&gl=us

And from the new blog site:

"So JEW Stastes of America get ready for furious revenge by Arabs.
May GOD curse you so called free people!"
http://farazilu.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html
But on some free day I will try make ROTI so I will enjoy a meal like home hare away from home in JEW.K (UK) cooked by me.
http://farazilu.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html
"In the same time Military of evil is suffering death by hand of Mujahideens [Islamic jihadists]."
http://by-faraz.blogspot.com/2008/02/13-september-2006.html

Note how all caps accompanies derogatory ethnically-based wordplay, as in "SHITAT."

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Wikipedians don't like compromise.

And their leader is stubborn as a mule. With terrible PR instincts. The twain meet in what is called a

"modern media disaster"

Take five.

Note how all caps accompanies derogatory ethnically-based wordplay, as in "SHITAT."

This is not about islam vs. judaism. Not even close. Why harp on some random person's comment in such a manner?

Do you really enjoy this level of political shit stirring, which has potential to cause hurt and violence?

It does have that potential.

Think of what other hobbies you could devote yourself to, and what positive energy you could produce. Otherwise.

Not that they have an obligation to do this, but Wikipedia the encyclopedia would be better served by a solution like that.

The hell they don't. If they want to be some giant chat board, or advocacy site, or political "whatever" then they should hang up the encyclopedia bullshit "hat" and rename themselves something more honset and indicative.

........ In that case, we should probably tell the people who thought they donated to an encyclopedia.

........well, yeah. As well as the trusting fools who donate time and energy (or servers, or bandwidth, not to mention money) to that which they though was an encyclopedia.


Of course, the real joke is:

Wikimania 2008 is in the Middle East.
Alexandria, Egypt

Egypt isn't an islamic state, but it is highly religious. Extremely religious. Very, very

I wouldn't be surprised if they found themselves suddenly "uninvited" from Alex.

They really made their bed. Hope lying in it is fun.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

As the list of signatories to Mr. Ahmad's anti-enlightenment petition grows, Muslim voices of reason, both Sunni and Shi'a, crop up throughout the blogosphere:

"And this is not even abuse, but 14th century artistic renditions of him (not even pictures) made by muslims themselves."
"Try to understand and don't become gangsters. They are not insulting cartoons. They are pictures (painted with love by Muslim scholars) to depict important incidents."
"The more alarming thing is that most people in Pakistan have come to the point where they either love the prophet as much or more than God. They have truly left the religion of Islam and accepted a new religion whose God head is Muhammed."
"It is sad that the Muslims always fight over petty things. Can we stop non-Muslims from doing all this considering the fact that they do not believe that Muhammad(SAW) was a prophet?"
http://www.buzzvines.com/wikipedia-site-ha...et-mohammad-sas
"Which people? The people of academia?
How are these pictures offensive and why will they push us towards terrorism?
Please think before posting such ignorant threads. I am surprised that this is posted in a Shia forum."
"I don't know what your problem is. The images are respectful and are historical documents."
"…i am glad to see the response of everyone the two peoples have logic
in their answers…now i know that there is nothing wrong with those pictures."
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234940276

Contrast this clarity with the paranoid sectarian narrative of the petition's initiator - a petition which crudely insults Shi'a (though granted many signatories probably don't know what it says) and demands that non-Muslims comply with rank Wahhabi superstition - as part of a global struggle in which Mujahidiin (Islamic jihadists) bring well-earned death to the forces of evil, England, America and Denmark, the pawns of the ever-scheming Jews, of whom this is only the latest plot.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

As the list of signatories to Mr. Ahmad's anti-enlightenment petition grows, Muslim voices of reason, both Sunni and Shi'a, crop up throughout the blogosphere:

Oh Pro.

Get off the drama train.

Do you have any idea that the entire Wikimania, if it's not cancelled by the Egyptian Government in sincere response to disrespect for islam, in in severe danger of being prone to some kind of serious attack (by any random nutjob not to mention Al Quaida) because of this sophomoric banter?

Hello. This is not your grandmother's debate.

As the list of signatories to Mr. Ahmad's anti-enlightenment petition grows

Calling the petition "anti-enlightenment" is simply ignorant.

They are quietly asking for respect. That's enlightened.

The French enlightenment (which so inspired the U.S. Founding Fathers) called for secularism in government (which ps: didn't get implemented in France until 1905, really), but it did not call for insult to religion as a means of implementation.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I wouldn't be surprised if they found themselves suddenly "uninvited" from Alex.

As W. Montgomery Watt and Maxime Rondinson were recently banned…
http://leb.net/~aljadid/features/MohammedS...stilePress.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story...1229990,00.html
http://www.washington-report.org/archives/...00/0007032.html
they'd be in excellent company. There's no shame in being banned in Egypt.

"…severe danger of being prone to some kind of serious attack…"

I agree that they might consider moving or cancelling it.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

As W. Montgomery Watt and Maxime Rondinson were recently banned, they'd be in good company.

No. I mean that Wikimania 2008 may well be "asked to host itself elsewhere".

Than Egypt.

That's not "banned". That's PNG'ed.

(persona non grata'd, in diplo-speak)

There's no shame in being banned in Egypt.

Dude. If that's your attitude, or their attitude, then they should not have chosen the venue.

Egypt is a lovely country, with kind, warm, intelligent people. I'd have recommended Sharm over Alex though. Much prettier fish for snorkeling and diving. Puts the Carribean and Mexico to shame.

Yes, yes, I know that Alex was chosen for the library metaphor. But nonetheless.

I agree that they might consider moving or cancelling it.

Their loss.

But really, you really *can't* move anywhere to avoid a terrorist attack these days. Madrid. London. Bali.

They come to visit you. At least in Egypt you'd have some kickass security watching everything, and everyone. They are terribly careful about their tourism industry. The Sharm bomb was a mistake that won't be repeated. Their security is air-tight.

In "wherever else", not necessarily.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

As W. Montgomery Watt and Maxime Rondinson were recently banned, they'd be in good company.

No. I mean that Wikimania 2008 may well be "asked to host itself elsewhere".

Than Egypt.

That's not "banned". That's PNG'ed.

(persona non grata'd, in diplo-speak)

I agree. Though, so far, the hysteria seems to emanate from the Islamic portion of the subcontinent, Egypt might be prudent to make that choice if internal considerations demand it. If snubbing Wikipedia is a hit with the people, they'll do that. Not our country, move along…what can you do? The Egyptian government is a friend to the West, but is still obliged to represent and take account of popular sentiment in its own sovereign territory.

I agree. Though, so far, the hysteria seems to emanate from the Islamic portion of the subcontinent, Egypt might be prudent to make that choice if internal considerations demand it. If snubbing Wikipedia is a hit with the people, they'll do that. Not our country, move along…what can you do? The Egyptian government is a friend to the West, but is still obliged to represent and take account of popular sentiment in its own sovereign territory.

I think you are still missing the point terribly. Egypt is not anything near populist. Au contraire.

Wikipedia's treatment of the issue is a smear in the face to islam, and this is going to not only be offensive to extremists, but to the most normal of average, everyday muslim sensibilities.

Uninviting Wikipedia in such circumstances wouldn't be a populist motion in the slightest. It is common sense.

And it isn't hysteria.

I would rather call it dignified indignation.

Why is something that you don't identify with 'hysteria'??

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

There's no shame in being banned in Egypt.

Dude. If that's your attitude, or their attitude, then they should not have chosen the venue.

Going back to my original question, what do think of the banning of Watt and Rodinson? Because if the question is only, "do Muslims feel offended," the answer is yes.

While if there is shame in being banned in Egypt, that shame falls upon our most esteemed scholars, does it not?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

While if there is there shame in being banned in Egypt, that shame falls upon our most esteemed scholars, does it not?

Again - you are widening this to a bigger political discussion than is relevant to the topic at hand.

I've noted this more than once.

I don't defend any particular banning from any country, or any particular action of any country, per se.

Having said that: The U.S. banns persons from its borders. On various grounds. So do many other countries. On various other grounds.

That doesn't have much (ANYTHING) to do with this particular article (THE MAIN POINT), and it's disrespect for islam.

Which is the point in question. From which you so eagerly diverge.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

That doesn't have much to do with this particular article, and it's disrespect for islam.

Which is the point in question. From which you so eagerly diverge.

No, I've addressed it squarely: quality secular scholarship = disrespect for Islam, as defined by the serial complainers. So, choose.

Going back to my original question, what do think of the banning of Watt and Rodinson?

I didn't answer this, so I will do so now. I couldn't give a tiny rat's tail about whoever-you-mentioned-which-maybe-was-an-unfair-event-but-why-throw-everything-in-the-discussion-but-the-kitchen-sink?. Just like I don't care about the latest EU policy on chicken farming (which is amazingly baroque). Because it isn't relevant to this discussion either.

quality secular scholarship = disrespect for Islam, as defined by the serial complainers. So, choose.

(IMG:http://static.flickr.com/106/289981080_4008fa579a.jpg)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Going back to my original question, what do think of the banning of Watt and Rodinson?

I didn't answer this, so I will do so now. I couldn't give a tiny rat's tail about whoever-you-mentioned-which-maybe-was-an-unfair-event-but-why-throw-everything-in-the-discussion-but-the-kitchen-sink?. Just like I don't care about the latest EU policy on chicken farming (which is amazing baroque). Because it isn't relevant to this discussion either.

But these are very luminaries of the field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Montgomery_Watt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Rodinson
What this tells me is that you don't know anything about academic Islamic studies, and therefore don't care about what happens to it.

Those who devoted their whole lives towards understanding and sharing that understanding deserve much better than that.

ROFLMAO

Ditto.

What we see here, I'm afraid, is that the imperatives of serious academic scholarship and that of "counter[ing] systemic bias"…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189143006
cannot both be satisfied. To the extent that critics adopt both tacks, they haven't honestly confronted this issue.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Egypt isn't an islamic state, but it is highly religious.

Also highly heterogeneous. Alexandria is in the more liberal/secular north.

Egypt isn't an islamic state, but it is highly religious.

Also highly heterogeneous. Alexandria is in the more liberal/secular north.

North? Secular? As in Cairo is secular? (Cairo is a half hour drive east from Alex).

I've been in Alex and the call to prayer gets the same attention as in other cities.

It's a pretty religious place, all around, that country.

Not fanatical. But religious, sure. God is a big part of the average person's life.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Going back to my original question, what do think of the banning of Watt and Rodinson?

I didn't answer this, so I will do so now. I couldn't give a tiny rat's tail about whoever-you-mentioned-which-maybe-was-an-unfair-event-but-why-throw-everything-in-the-discussion-but-the-kitchen-sink?. Just like I don't care about the latest EU policy on chicken farming (which is amazingly baroque). Because it isn't relevant to this discussion either.

Exactly DL. This has nothing to do with stereotypes of anti-Muslim bigots of terrorism or violence. It certainly has nothing to do any state action of any nation in the Islamic world. Or state action by any Western nation for that matter. It isn't about some other failed petition wikien-l conflates and derives quotes it can miss-attribute. Get over the notion that Wikipedia is some high calling above the fray of actually considering the views of people outside their entitled circle. This isn't a few spammers or bot generated signatures in an insignificant petition. This petition, despite the best efforts of Wikipedians, has turned out to be something not so easily dismissed.

It is time to restate:

A huge number of Muslims have petitioned Wikipedia to remove images they find offensive. They have conducted their petition with great dignity and restraint, without threat or malice. Some people associated with the petition attempted to address their their concern using internal (talk page) process only to be completely dismissed even when an obvious compromise (link to depictions) presented itself. The petition continued to gain strength. It now has over 88,000 signatures. It has finally gained the attention of the world press. The petitioners deserve to be seriously listened to by Wikipedia.

Those who devoted their whole lives towards understanding and sharing that understanding deserve much better than that.

Understanding WHAT issue?

Understanding the pictures? Or understanding the topic you are pulling into the discussion, that I mocked as the diversion that it is?

What we see here, I'm afraid, is that the imperatives of serious academic scholarship and that of "counter[ing] systemic bias"…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189143006
cannot both be satisfied. To the extent that critics adopt both tacks, they haven't honestly confronted this issue.

Both sides of WHAT, exactly?

You are trying really, really hard to make this a debate about something it is not.

quality secular scholarship = disrespect for Islam, as defined by the serial complainers. So, choose.

Who said that only secular scholarship is quality? Why should secular be preferred? Where is that written in the Wikipedia mandate?

As for the bannings of certain scholars - it isn't that I don't 'care' about them (despite my previous tail statements). It is that I don't think their cases deserve inclusion in the Mohammed picture discussions.

Doing so smacks of "payback".

Exactly DL. This has nothing to do with stereotypes of anti-Muslim bigots of terrorism or violence. It certainly has nothing to do any state action of any nation in the Islamic world. Or state action by any Western nation for that matter. It isn't about some other failed petition wikien-l conflates and derives quotes it can miss-attribute. Get over the notion that Wikipedia is some high calling above the fray of actually considering the views of people outside their entitled circle. This isn't a few spammers or bot generated signatures in an insignificant petition. This petition, despite the best efforts of Wikipedians, has turned out to be something not so easily dismissed.

Exactly. Enough with all this grandstanding about other politics.

Start new pages on those issues and argue about them (even on WR, and of course WP).

Don't make them part of the Mohammed picture debate.

People are using this as an excuse to pick on islam and muslims.

I find it irksome. To say the least.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Mitch Hopper's (who apparently works OTRS) letter to a petitioner is posted on this Pakistani blog, "Pakistan: Land of the Pure":

I'm sorry you were offended by this article. As stated in our disclaimers, Wikipedia contains content that some may find offensive. Our goal is to
provide full and accurate information for the education of all. This means that we have text and images that some may feel overly explicit or may go against the beliefs of some religious groups.
http://thelandofpure.blogspot.com/2008/02/...t-muhammad.html

One respondent echoes the petition leader's logic:

"I dont understand where is their freedom of speech when Ernst Zundel was punished for few years just because he denied the "holocaust"."
http://thelandofpure.blogspot.com/2008/02/...t-muhammad.html

Respected law professor Eugene Volokh supports Wikipedia's decision on his blog:

Good for Wikipedia. An encyclopedia may certainly choose not to include such pictures, and still remain true to its mission…But I think an encyclopedia may also properly refuse to succumb to such pressure, and I approve of the Wikipedia editors' refusal here.
http://volokh.com/posts/1202243078.shtml#contact

Another Muslim voice of reason:

"The first time I saw this illustration was in my humanities class which was about Cultural Images of Islam."
http://www.mylifedump.com/2008/02/05/15th-...-muhammad-pbuh/

Another less reasonable voice:

"Let's make sure that every muslim in the world voices their protest against this blasphemous act. Also lets see what we can do to contact the publishers of the book and have them also remove this illustration from the book."
http://path-to-peace.com/community/showthread.php?p=40965

A Sunni dissenter on the Shiachat forum named "Niche" offers a more specific reason to avoid the pictures - and a very compelling one, if true:

"Those who have watched these pictures will have to reproduce the same pictures on Qiyamah [judgment day] and then give life them with their own blood."
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234940276

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

You can't stand it, can you Proabivouac, that the vast majority of petitioners have conducted themselves with such extraordinary dignity? It just disrupts your expectations doesn't it? Do you intend to vet every statement on every forum of every one of the now 97,649 signatories?

http://www.mylifedump.com/2008/02/05/15th-...-muhammad-pbuh/
Another less reasonable voice:

"Let's make sure that every muslim in the world voices their protest against this blasphemous act. Also lets see what we can do to contact the publishers of the book and have them also remove this illustration from the book."
http://path-to-peace.com/community/showthread.php?p=40965
A Sunni dissenter on the Shiachat forum named "Niche" offers a more specific reason to avoid the pictures - and a very compelling one, if true:

"Those who have watched these pictures will have to reproduce the same pictures on Qiyamah [judgment day] and then give life them with their own blood."
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234940276

Sooooooooooooo.... everyone who agrees with you is "reasonable"....

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand... you are going to show any impassioned voice of a person from another culture who mentions their cultural version of "fire and brimstone" (for punishment of blasphemy) is to be mocked to show how weird they are (and therefore not credible).

How entertaining.

Provabivoaic, you are all about bating these people here. It's puerile.

Seriously - this is not the place for this Pro. You should go over to Wikipedia and tell them how clever and correct they are, and pat them on the back for their fabulousness.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

You can't stand it, can you Proabivouac, that the vast majority of petitioners have conducted themselves with such extraordinary dignity? It just disrupts your expectations doesn't it? Do you intend to vet every statement on every forum of every one of the now 97,649 signatories?

I think you can't stand it when they're allowed to speak for themselves, instead of having you speaking for them. For when they do, they say interesting things which would come as surprises to anyone who had only listened to your representations. You are interested, it seems, in having people sympathize with the petitioners, but not in understanding them.

Seriously - this is not the place for this Pro. You should go over to Wikipedia and tell them how clever and correct they are, and pat them on the back for their fabulousness.

There we were, telling me that this wasn't about books or academia…now a Muslim writes of seeing these images in university, another suggests censoring the books in which they first appeared, and what do we do? Move on without skipping a beat.

And there we were, telling me I was tossing red herrings by discussing Salman Rushdie…

"and how can such a foolish man(Professor Harun Behr) say something like that, i think he must be like Rushdi who accepted Islam before and then left it again when he cant follow Islam in its true sense. when he cant find any filth then he left."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189538979

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

What's the big beef with the english language wiki?

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF

What's the big beef with the english language wiki?

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF

As you know, that is Farsi, and most Farsi speakers are Shiite Muslims. Shiites accept the depiction of Muhammed, whereas Sunni Muslims do not.